WO2004046882B1 - Fraud and abuse detection and entity profiling in hierarchical coded payment systems - Google Patents
Fraud and abuse detection and entity profiling in hierarchical coded payment systemsInfo
- Publication number
- WO2004046882B1 WO2004046882B1 PCT/US2003/036888 US0336888W WO2004046882B1 WO 2004046882 B1 WO2004046882 B1 WO 2004046882B1 US 0336888 W US0336888 W US 0336888W WO 2004046882 B1 WO2004046882 B1 WO 2004046882B1
- Authority
- WO
- WIPO (PCT)
- Prior art keywords
- pps
- computer
- variables
- implemented method
- data
- Prior art date
Links
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q40/00—Finance; Insurance; Tax strategies; Processing of corporate or income taxes
- G06Q40/02—Banking, e.g. interest calculation or account maintenance
Abstract
Fraud and abuse detection in an entity's payment coding practices includes the ability to search for fraud at all levels of the hierarchical coded payment system within the context of an unsupervised model. The model uses variables derived and profiles created at any level or at all levels of the hierarchical coded payment system to create a comprehensive description of the payment coding activities submitted by the entity. That description is compared with other peer entities to determine unusual and To potentially inappropriate activity. The profiles created may themselves be utilized for purposes other than the detection of fraud and abuse.
Claims
1. A computer-implemented method for evaluating the behavior of a facility from the facility's activity in a hierarchical coded payment system, the method comprising: calculating summary variables from data for a particular activity metric, the metric at any desired level of and associated with the hierarchical coded payment system, the data representing services provided by at least one facility in return for payment determined using the hierarchical coded payment system; determining normalized variables based on comparing the summary variables with peer data for the particular metric; and deriving a behavior indicator from the normalized variables, the indicator indicating a measure of aberrance of the facility's behavior with respect to the peer data.
2. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the hierarchical coded payment system is selected from a group of Prospective Payment Systems (PPS) comprising Medicare Ambulatory Surgical Center PPS, Medicare Inpatient Hospital PPS, Medicare Skilled Nursing Facility PPS, Medicare Home Health PPS, Medicare Outpatient Hospital PPS, Medicare Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility PPS, Medicare Part C risk adjustment, Medicare Swing Bed Facility PPS, Medicare Long- Term Care PPS, any future Medicare Part B procedure PPS, Medicaid PPS, private insurer's PPS (including private version of the CMS PPS), and national-payer healthcare PPS.
3. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1 , wherein the data is obtained in batches from transactional level data associated with the facility.
4. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the data is obtained from updates made to transactional level data associated with the facility.
5. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the hierarchical coded payment system includes a plurality of classification levels defining the payment determined, the plurality of classification levels comprisinα: 69
a primary level including a set of driving elements used to encode the service provider activity at a transactional level; an intermediary level including a set of groups, each group mapping one or more driving elements to a particular payment rate; and an aggregate level including a set of categories, each category being mapped to one or more of the groups according to predetermined industry classification schemes,
6. The computer-implemented method according to claim 5, wherein the hierarchical coded payment system comprises a Medicare Inpatient Hospital Prospective Payment System, the driving elements comprise Diagnosis Codes, the groups comprise Diagnosis Related Groups, and the categories comprise Major Disease Categories.
7. The computer-implemented method according to claim 5, wherein the driving elements comprise Principal Diagnosis codes.
8. The computer-implemented method according to claim 5, wherein the hierarchical coded payment system comprises a Medicare Skilled N ursing Facility Prospective Payment System, the driving e lements comprise a M inimum Data Set, the groups comprise Resource Utilization Groups, and the categories comprise Major Resource Categories,
9. The computer-implemented method according to claim 5, wherein summary variables comprise one of the data extracted acro33 the primary level, the data extracted within the driving elements, the data extracted across the intermediary level, the data extracted within the groups, the data extracted across the aggregate level, and the data extracted within the categories.
10. The computer-implemented method according to claim 5 , wherein calculating summary variables from the data comprises: capturing behavioral characteristics across the primary level into a profile; and deriving the summary variables from the profile.
11. The computer-implemented method according to claim 5 , wherein calculating summary variables from the data comprises; capturing behavioral characteristics within the driving elements into a profile; 70
and deriving the summary variables from the profile.
12. The computer-implemented method according to claim 5 , wherein calculating summary variables from the data comprises: capturing behavioral characteristics across the intermediary level into a profile; and deriving the summary variables from the profile.
13. The computer-implemented method according to claim 5 , wherein calculating summary variables from the data comprises: capturing behavioral characteristics within the groups into a profile; and deriving the summary variables from the profile.
14. The computer-implemented method according to claim 5 , wherein calculating summary variables from the data comprises: capturing behavioral characteristics across the aggregate level into a profile; and deriving the summary variables from the profile.
15. The computer-implemented method according to claim 5, wherein calculating summary variables from the data comprises: capturing behavioral characteristics within the categories into a profile; and deriving the summary variables from the profile.
16. The computer-implemented method according to claim 5 , wherein calculating summary variables from the data comprises: capturing behavioral characteristics across the facility into a profile; and deriving the summary variables from the profile.
17. The computer-implemented method according to claim 5, wherein calculating summary variables from the data comprises: capturing behavioral characteristics within the facility into a profile; and deriving the summary variables from the profile.
18. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein comparing the summary variables with industry-wide peer data for the particular metric comprises: 71
determining a first distribution based on the summary variables; determining a second distribution based on the industry-wide peer data; detecting aberrations between the first distribution and the second distribution; and integrating the aberrations detected into the normalized variables.
19. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein determining normalized variables comprises: merging the summary variables with the industry-wide peer data; and rolling-up the summary variables with the industry-wide peer data,
20. The computer-implemented method according to claim 19, wherein rolling-up the summary variables comprises: applying a distributional function to the metric across all of the summary variables; and responsive to distributional function applied, determining a scalar quantity representing the normalized variables
21. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1 , wherein the metric is selected from one of a group of metrics comprising an indicator of total costs claimed by the facility, an indicator of the facility's average patient length of stay, and an indicator of a number of claims made by the facility.
22. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein deriving an indicator from the normalized variables comprises: determining a score value for the normalized variables; producingreasons derived from one or more top significant variables supporting the score; and associating a threshold value with the score value, the indicator representing the potentially fraudulent service provider activity when a score value exceeds the threshold value,
23. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein potentially fraudulent service provider activity comprises the facility upcodiπg the payment in return for the services. 72
24. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the indicator comprises a discrepancy between the summary variables compared with the peer data for the particular metric.
25. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1 , wherein potentially fraudulent service provider activily comprises the facility causing inappropriate selection of the metric to obtain an increased amount of the payment.
26. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein potentially fraudulent service provider activity comprises the facility furnishing the services at a reduced level which is not commensurate with the payment.
27. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the potentially fraudulent service provider activity comprises the facility furnishing the services fictitiously.
28. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1 , wherein the facility is selected from a group of entities comprising healthcare related facilities, healthcare providers, patients, beneficiaries, healthcare claims processors, and skilled nursing facilities.
29. A computer-implemented ethod for determining potentially fraudulent service provider activity in a hierarchical coded payment system, the method comprising: obtaining data representing services provided by at least one facility in return for payment, the payment determined using the hierarchical coded payment system, having a plurality of classification levels defining the payment determined, the plurality of classification levels comprising, a driving element level including a set of driving elements used to encode the service provider activity at a transactional level, a group level including a set of groups, each group mapping one or more driving elements to a particular payment rate, and a category level including a set of categories, each category being mapped to one or more of the groups according to predetermined industry classification schemes; calculating summary variables from the data for a particular metric associated with the hierarchical coded payment system; 73
determining normalized variables based on comparing the summary variables with industry-wide peer data for the particular metric; and deriving an indicator from the normalized variables, the indicator representing the potentially fraudulent service provider activity.
30. The computer-implemented method according to claim 29, wherein the hierarchical coded payment system comprises a Medicare Inpatient Hospital Prospective Payment System, the driving elements comprise Diagnosis Codes, the groups comprise Diagnosis Related Groups, and the categories comprise Major Disease Categories.
31. The computer-implemented method according to claim 29, wherein the driving elements comprise Principal Diagnosis codes.
32. The computer-implemented method according to claim 29, wherein the hierarchical coded payment system is selected from a group of Prospective Payment Systems (PPS) comprising Medicare Ambulatory Surgical Center PPS, Medicare Inpatient Hospital PPS, Medicare Skilled Nursing Facility PPS, Medicare Home Health PPS, Medicare Outpatient Hospital PPS, Medicare Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility P PS, Medicare Part C risk a djustment, Medicare Swing Bed Facility PPS, Medicare Loπg-Term Care PPS, any future Medicare Part B procedure PPS, Medicaid PPS, private insurer's PPS (including private version of the CMS PPS), and national-payer healthcare PPS.
33. The computer-implemented method according . to claim 29, wherein the hierarchical coded payment system comprises a Medicare Skilled Nursing Facility Prospective Payment System, the driving elements comprise a Minimum Data Set, the groups comprise Resource Utilization Groups, and the categories comprise Major Resource Categories.
34. The computer-implemented method according to claim 29, wherein the summary variables comprise one of the data extracted across the primary level, the data extracted within the driving elements, the data extracted across the intermediary level, the data extracted within the groups, the data extracted across the aggregate level, a.nd the data extracted within the categories.
35. The computer-implemented method according to claim 29, wherein the normalized variables include a deviation measure based on the summary variables compared with the industry-wide peer data.
36. A computer-implemented method for generating fraud indication within a Prospective Payment System (r^6), me metπoα comprising: generating profiles of service provider activities rendered for payment by a facility, the profiles being dynamically derived from transactional level data associated with service provider activities; calculating summary variables from the profiles input into a predictive model for a particular metric associated with the PPS; determining a deviation measure based on comparing the summary variables with industry-wide peer data for the particular metric; and deriving an i ndicator from the deviation m easure, the i ndicator representing the fraud indication based on aberrations associated with the deviation measure.
37. The computer-implemented method of claim 36, wherein the payment is . determined according to a payment function associated with the PPS.
38. The computer-implemented method of claim 36, wherein PPS comprises a plurality of classification levels defining the payment, the plurality of classification levels comprising: a driving element level including a set of driving -elements used to encode the service provider activity at a transactional level; a group level including a set of groups, each group mapping one or more driving elements to a particular payment rate; and a category level including a set of categories, each category being mapped to one or more of the groups according to predetermined industry classification schemes.
39. The computer-implemented method according to claim 38, wherein the summary variables comprise one of summary variables calculated across the driving 75
element level, calculated within the driving elements, calculated across the group level, calculated within the groups, calculated across the category level, and calculated within the categories.
40. A computer-implemented method for determining potentially fraudulent service provider activity in a hierarchical coded payment system, the method comprising: obtaining data representing services provided by a facility in return for payment, the payment determined using the hierarchical coded payment system having a driving element level including a set of driving elements used to encode the service provider activity at a transactional level, and a group level including a set of groups, each group mapping one or more driving elements to a particular payment rate; identifying a riving element set comprising a plurality of groups to which a plurality of driving elements map thereto; identifying all combinations of pairs of groups within the driving element set; for each pair, calculating summary variables from the data for a particular metric associated with the hierarchical coded payment system; within the pair, determining normalized variables based on comparing the summary variables for both groups in the pair with industry-wide peer data; and deriving indicators of the potentially fraudulent service provider activity from the normalized variables representing a group in the pair that is associated with a higher payment rate.
41. In a computer-controlled Prospective Payment System (PPS) including a computer readable memory and a neural network stored in the computer readable memory, the neural network detecting potentially fraudulent service provider activity in the PPS, comprising: a first calculator capable of producing profiles from claim data and summary variables encoded from transaction data associated with the PPS; coupled to the first calculator, a second calculator capable of producing industry-wide statistical peer data; 76
coupled to the second calculator, a generator enabled to provide a deviation measure based on comparing the profiles with i πdustry-wide peer d ata; and coupled to the generator, an indicator capable of detecting the potentially fraudulent service provider activity basa on aberrations associated with the deviation measure.
42. The neural network according to claim 41, wherein the PPS is defined according to a structure including a set of driving elements, each driving element being used to encode service provider activities performed at a transactional level; a set of groups, each group including one or more driving elements as a collection used to characterize a set of the activities, the groups enabled to map the service provider activities to a payment function; and a set of categories, each category being mapped to one or more of the groups according to a predetermined set of classification schemes.
43. A computer program product for determining potentially fraudulent service provider activity in a hierarchical coded payment system, the program product stored on a computer readable medium and adapted to perform the operations of: allowing calculation of summary variables from data for a particular metric, the metric at any desired level of and associated with the hierarchical coded payment system, the data representing services provided by at least one facility in return for payment determined using the hierarchical coded payment system; allowing normalized variables to be determined based on comparing the summary variables with industry-wide peer data for the particular metric; and enabling derivation of an indicator from the normalized variables, the indicator representing the potentially fraudulent service provider activity,
44. The computer program product according to claim 43, wherein the hierarchical coded payment system comprises a Prospective Payment System (PPS). 77
45. The computer program product according to claim 44, wherein the PPS is selected from one of a group of PPS' comprising Medicare Ambulatory Surgical Center PPS, Medicare Inpatient Hospital PPS, Medicare Skilled Nursing Facility PPS, Medicare Home Health PPS, Medicare Outpatient Hospital PPS, Medicare Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility PPS, IVledicare Part C risk adjustment, Medicare Swing Bed Facility PPS, Medicare Long-Term Care PPS, Medicare Part B procedure PPS, Medicaid PPS, private insurer's PPS, and national-payer healthcare PPS.
46. A computer program product for determining potentially fraudulent service provider activity in a hierarchical coded payment system, the program product stored on a computer readable medium and adapted to perform the operations of: allowing data to be obtained representing services provided by at least one facility in return for payment, the payment determined using the hierarchical coded payment system, having a plurality of classification levels defining the payment determined, the plurality of classification levels comprising, a driving element level including a set of driving elements used to encode the service provider activity at a transactional level, a group level including a set of groups, each group mapping one or more driving elements to a particular payment rate, and a category level including a set of categories, each category being mapped to one or more of the groups according to predetermined industry classification schemes; enabling calculation of summary variables from the data for a particular metric associated with the hierarchical coded payment system; enabling determination of normalized variables based on comparing the summary variables with industry-wide peer data for the particular metric; and allowing derivation of an indicator from the normalized variables, the indicator representing the potentially fraudulent service provider activity.
47. A computer-implemented method for evaluating an entity, wherein the entity has activities or attributes which are classified in a hierarchical classification scheme 78
from transactions associated with the entity, each classification associated with a quantitative value, the method comprising: generating a profile of the entity's activities or attributes based on transaction level data from the entity's transactions, and derived from the quantitative values associated with the classifications of the activities or attributes in the entity's transactions; calculating summary variables from the profile; normalizing the summary variables with respect to variables derived from the activities or attributes of peers of the entity; scoring the normalized profile of the entity using an unsupervised predictive model of a selected metric associated with the hierarchical classification scheme, to produce a deviation measure; and deriving an i ndicator from the deviation measure, the indicator representing the evaluation of the entity based on the deviation measure.
Priority Applications (2)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| EP03786816A EP1561178A4 (en) | 2002-11-15 | 2003-11-14 | Fraud and abuse detection and entity profiling in hierarchical coded payment systems |
| AU2003295619A AU2003295619A1 (en) | 2002-11-15 | 2003-11-14 | Fraud and abuse detection and entity profiling in hierarchical coded payment systems |
Applications Claiming Priority (2)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| US10/295,589 | 2002-11-15 | ||
| US10/295,589 US8666757B2 (en) | 1999-07-28 | 2002-11-15 | Detection of upcoding and code gaming fraud and abuse in prospective payment healthcare systems |
Publications (3)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| WO2004046882A2 WO2004046882A2 (en) | 2004-06-03 |
| WO2004046882A3 WO2004046882A3 (en) | 2004-08-05 |
| WO2004046882B1 true WO2004046882B1 (en) | 2004-09-30 |
Family
ID=32324344
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCT/US2003/036888 WO2004046882A2 (en) | 2002-11-15 | 2003-11-14 | Fraud and abuse detection and entity profiling in hierarchical coded payment systems |
Country Status (3)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| EP (1) | EP1561178A4 (en) |
| AU (1) | AU2003295619A1 (en) |
| WO (1) | WO2004046882A2 (en) |
Cited By (8)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US8880487B1 (en) | 2011-02-18 | 2014-11-04 | Pegasystems Inc. | Systems and methods for distributed rules processing |
| US9110916B1 (en) | 2006-11-28 | 2015-08-18 | Lower My Bills, Inc. | System and method of removing duplicate leads |
| US9195936B1 (en) | 2011-12-30 | 2015-11-24 | Pegasystems Inc. | System and method for updating or modifying an application without manual coding |
| US9508092B1 (en) | 2007-01-31 | 2016-11-29 | Experian Information Solutions, Inc. | Systems and methods for providing a direct marketing campaign planning environment |
| US9563916B1 (en) | 2006-10-05 | 2017-02-07 | Experian Information Solutions, Inc. | System and method for generating a finance attribute from tradeline data |
| US9633322B1 (en) | 2013-03-15 | 2017-04-25 | Consumerinfo.Com, Inc. | Adjustment of knowledge-based authentication |
| US11568348B1 (en) | 2011-10-31 | 2023-01-31 | Consumerinfo.Com, Inc. | Pre-data breach monitoring |
| US11847693B1 (en) | 2014-02-14 | 2023-12-19 | Experian Information Solutions, Inc. | Automatic generation of code for attributes |
Families Citing this family (31)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US7665063B1 (en) | 2004-05-26 | 2010-02-16 | Pegasystems, Inc. | Integration of declarative rule-based processing with procedural programming |
| US8732004B1 (en) | 2004-09-22 | 2014-05-20 | Experian Information Solutions, Inc. | Automated analysis of data to generate prospect notifications based on trigger events |
| GB2418499A (en) * | 2004-09-24 | 2006-03-29 | Advanced Forensic Solutions Lt | Information analysis arrangement |
| US8924335B1 (en) | 2006-03-30 | 2014-12-30 | Pegasystems Inc. | Rule-based user interface conformance methods |
| US7778885B1 (en) | 2006-12-04 | 2010-08-17 | Lower My Bills, Inc. | System and method of enhancing leads |
| US8606666B1 (en) | 2007-01-31 | 2013-12-10 | Experian Information Solutions, Inc. | System and method for providing an aggregation tool |
| US8250525B2 (en) | 2007-03-02 | 2012-08-21 | Pegasystems Inc. | Proactive performance management for multi-user enterprise software systems |
| US7975299B1 (en) | 2007-04-05 | 2011-07-05 | Consumerinfo.Com, Inc. | Child identity monitor |
| WO2008147918A2 (en) | 2007-05-25 | 2008-12-04 | Experian Information Solutions, Inc. | System and method for automated detection of never-pay data sets |
| US11037229B2 (en) * | 2008-02-29 | 2021-06-15 | Scott Zoldi | Fraud detection system for the faster payments system |
| US10373198B1 (en) | 2008-06-13 | 2019-08-06 | Lmb Mortgage Services, Inc. | System and method of generating existing customer leads |
| US7991689B1 (en) | 2008-07-23 | 2011-08-02 | Experian Information Solutions, Inc. | Systems and methods for detecting bust out fraud using credit data |
| US20100174638A1 (en) | 2009-01-06 | 2010-07-08 | ConsumerInfo.com | Report existence monitoring |
| US8843435B1 (en) | 2009-03-12 | 2014-09-23 | Pegasystems Inc. | Techniques for dynamic data processing |
| US8468492B1 (en) | 2009-03-30 | 2013-06-18 | Pegasystems, Inc. | System and method for creation and modification of software applications |
| US9652802B1 (en) | 2010-03-24 | 2017-05-16 | Consumerinfo.Com, Inc. | Indirect monitoring and reporting of a user's credit data |
| US10453093B1 (en) | 2010-04-30 | 2019-10-22 | Lmb Mortgage Services, Inc. | System and method of optimizing matching of leads |
| US9235728B2 (en) | 2011-02-18 | 2016-01-12 | Csidentity Corporation | System and methods for identifying compromised personally identifiable information on the internet |
| US10255598B1 (en) | 2012-12-06 | 2019-04-09 | Consumerinfo.Com, Inc. | Credit card account data extraction |
| US8812387B1 (en) | 2013-03-14 | 2014-08-19 | Csidentity Corporation | System and method for identifying related credit inquiries |
| US10469396B2 (en) | 2014-10-10 | 2019-11-05 | Pegasystems, Inc. | Event processing with enhanced throughput |
| US10339527B1 (en) | 2014-10-31 | 2019-07-02 | Experian Information Solutions, Inc. | System and architecture for electronic fraud detection |
| US10242019B1 (en) | 2014-12-19 | 2019-03-26 | Experian Information Solutions, Inc. | User behavior segmentation using latent topic detection |
| US11151468B1 (en) | 2015-07-02 | 2021-10-19 | Experian Information Solutions, Inc. | Behavior analysis using distributed representations of event data |
| US10698599B2 (en) | 2016-06-03 | 2020-06-30 | Pegasystems, Inc. | Connecting graphical shapes using gestures |
| US10698647B2 (en) | 2016-07-11 | 2020-06-30 | Pegasystems Inc. | Selective sharing for collaborative application usage |
| US10699028B1 (en) | 2017-09-28 | 2020-06-30 | Csidentity Corporation | Identity security architecture systems and methods |
| US10896472B1 (en) | 2017-11-14 | 2021-01-19 | Csidentity Corporation | Security and identity verification system and architecture |
| US11048488B2 (en) | 2018-08-14 | 2021-06-29 | Pegasystems, Inc. | Software code optimizer and method |
| US11567945B1 (en) | 2020-08-27 | 2023-01-31 | Pegasystems Inc. | Customized digital content generation systems and methods |
| CN112926879B (en) * | 2021-03-26 | 2022-05-20 | 平安科技（深圳）有限公司 | Payment scheme decision method, device and equipment for disease diagnosis related grouping |
Family Cites Families (2)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US5253164A (en) * | 1988-09-30 | 1993-10-12 | Hpr, Inc. | System and method for detecting fraudulent medical claims via examination of service codes |
| US5577169A (en) * | 1994-04-29 | 1996-11-19 | International Business Machines Corporation | Fuzzy logic entity behavior profiler |
-
2003
- 2003-11-14 WO PCT/US2003/036888 patent/WO2004046882A2/en not_active Application Discontinuation
- 2003-11-14 AU AU2003295619A patent/AU2003295619A1/en not_active Abandoned
- 2003-11-14 EP EP03786816A patent/EP1561178A4/en not_active Withdrawn
Cited By (8)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US9563916B1 (en) | 2006-10-05 | 2017-02-07 | Experian Information Solutions, Inc. | System and method for generating a finance attribute from tradeline data |
| US9110916B1 (en) | 2006-11-28 | 2015-08-18 | Lower My Bills, Inc. | System and method of removing duplicate leads |
| US9508092B1 (en) | 2007-01-31 | 2016-11-29 | Experian Information Solutions, Inc. | Systems and methods for providing a direct marketing campaign planning environment |
| US8880487B1 (en) | 2011-02-18 | 2014-11-04 | Pegasystems Inc. | Systems and methods for distributed rules processing |
| US11568348B1 (en) | 2011-10-31 | 2023-01-31 | Consumerinfo.Com, Inc. | Pre-data breach monitoring |
| US9195936B1 (en) | 2011-12-30 | 2015-11-24 | Pegasystems Inc. | System and method for updating or modifying an application without manual coding |
| US9633322B1 (en) | 2013-03-15 | 2017-04-25 | Consumerinfo.Com, Inc. | Adjustment of knowledge-based authentication |
| US11847693B1 (en) | 2014-02-14 | 2023-12-19 | Experian Information Solutions, Inc. | Automatic generation of code for attributes |
Also Published As
| Publication number | Publication date |
|---|---|
| AU2003295619A1 (en) | 2004-06-15 |
| WO2004046882A2 (en) | 2004-06-03 |
| EP1561178A4 (en) | 2009-08-12 |
| AU2003295619A8 (en) | 2004-06-15 |
| WO2004046882A3 (en) | 2004-08-05 |
| EP1561178A2 (en) | 2005-08-10 |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| WO2004046882B1 (en) | Fraud and abuse detection and entity profiling in hierarchical coded payment systems | |
| Garmon | The accuracy of hospital merger screening methods | |
| Rosko | Cost efficiency of US hospitals: a stochastic frontier approach | |
| US9734290B2 (en) | System and method for evidence based differential analysis and incentives based healthcare policy | |
| Peacock et al. | Techniques for measuring efficiency in health services | |
| Stevenson et al. | An overview of the injury severity score and the new injury severity score | |
| Kazis et al. | Measurement comparisons of the medical outcomes study and veterans SF-36® health survey | |
| Duncan | Healthcare risk adjustment and predictive modeling | |
| US20130159023A1 (en) | System and method for evidence based differential analysis and incentives based heal thcare policy | |
| Mello et al. | Understanding biased selection in Medicare HMOs | |
| US20030158751A1 (en) | Fraud and abuse detection and entity profiling in hierarchical coded payment systems | |
| Knickman et al. | Regional differences in hospital utilization: how much can be traced to population differences? | |
| Landon et al. | A comparison of relative resource use and quality in Medicare Advantage health plans versus traditional Medicare | |
| WO2022121217A1 (en) | Quota prediction method and device, and computer-readable storage medium | |
| CN113160993A (en) | Health intervention system, server and health management system | |
| Chen et al. | The cost effectiveness of post-acute care for elderly Medicare beneficiaries | |
| Angelis et al. | Is the funding of public national health systems sustainable over the long term? Evidence from eight OECD countries | |
| Li et al. | Cost-benefit of hiring athletic trainers in Oregon high schools from 2011–2014 | |
| Dove et al. | A prediction model for targeting low-cost, high-risk members of managed care organizations | |
| Neale et al. | Interrater reliability of injury coding in the Queensland Trauma Registry | |
| Zinn et al. | The use of standardized indicators as quality improvement tools: an application in Pennsylvania nursing homes | |
| Burke et al. | Health care costs in patients with fibromyalgia on pregabalin vs. duloxetine | |
| Cropper et al. | The social costs of chronic heart and lung disease | |
| Laport et al. | Adjusting for nursing care case mix in hospital reimbursement: a review of international practice | |
| Besstremyannaya | Differential effects of declining rates in a per diem payment system |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| AK | Designated states |
Kind code of ref document: A2 Designated state(s): AE AG AL AM AT AU AZ BA BB BG BR BY BZ CA CH CN CO CR CU CZ DE DK DM DZ EC EE ES FI GB GD GE GH GM HR HU ID IL IN IS JP KE KG KP KR KZ LC LK LR LS LT LU LV MA MD MG MK MN MW MX MZ NO NZ OM PH PL PT RO RU SD SE SG SK SL TJ TM TR TT TZ UA UG UZ VN YU ZA ZW |
|
| AL | Designated countries for regional patents |
Kind code of ref document: A2 Designated state(s): BW GH GM KE LS MW MZ SD SL SZ TZ UG ZM ZW AM AZ BY KG KZ MD RU TJ TM AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB GR HU IE IT LU MC NL PT RO SE SI SK TR BF BJ CF CG CI CM GA GN GQ GW ML MR NE SN TD TG |
|
| 121 | Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application | ||
| B | Later publication of amended claims |
Effective date: 20040820 |
|
| WWE | Wipo information: entry into national phase |
Ref document number: 2003786816 Country of ref document: EP |
|
| WWP | Wipo information: published in national office |
Ref document number: 2003786816 Country of ref document: EP |
|
| NENP | Non-entry into the national phase in: |
Ref country code: JP |
|
| WWW | Wipo information: withdrawn in national office |
Country of ref document: JP |