Note: In December 2021 SJV and Wholesale Screening merged to become InformData.
We recently decided to take an X-Ray of "Brand X's" (name withheld to protect the not-so-innocent) medical and healthcare compliance search so that we could evaluate the strength of our MedEx data which allows background screening companies to screen and continuously monitor for medical sanctions, exclusions and board actions.A leading background screening company sent us a batch of 363 names which had already been tested by Brand X and reported as having adverse medical compliance data about the subjects.
We have your rest results:
- You might want a second opinion- We rarely agreed! Of the 363 reported records, MedEx only reported 20 (6%) that included the same data Brand X reported. Or said another way, Brand X’s results sent the client down a rabbit hole 94% of the time.
- False positives lead to potential liability- 151 records (42%) lacked sufficient identifiers to confirm they belonged to the subject of the report or highlighted adverse information about the company the subject worked for, not the subject as an individual. That adds up to a lot of potential lawsuits. Can you say, class action!
- Pulse not found- We were unable to find 45 (12%) of the records at the primary source reported by Brand X. In fact, we found that the individuals had clean and active licenses. We’ve determined that these records were retrieved from expired or non-actionable sources. Translation, they don’t actually exist. See last conclusion.
- Don’t go to a plumber for medical advice- 77 records (21%) came from non-compliant sources including sites which specifically disallow use for employment purposes. Since when does the Boy Scouts of America count as a relevant source?
- Missed diagnosis- We identified records on 18 individuals (5%) that Brand X failed to identify. At $10,000 per person, per day that adds up to a lot of fines from federal regulators.
Brand X is on the table and he’s gonna code (everyone loves a Green Day reference).
- InformData’s approach to primary-sourced data is fundamental to protecting our clients and candidates they are screening
- InformData’s reporting processes and guidelines ensure that we only report information that can be verified and that we have near-certainty that the record found belongs to the person we are screening
- InformData doesn’t artificially increase the size of the data set by posting entities (companies and organizations) sanctions or non-primary source data that is old or reposted from primary source; or old historical data from a source that is no longer verifiable.
- InformData’s data covers a minimum of 7 years (or longer based on the sources policies) to ensure we have historical records that are relevant and accurate.
Want to learn more about how our medical compliance data can help you get ahead of the competition?