Accountable care, payer–provider and capitated risk.
No national identifier and accountability that moves annually — both configuration problems rather than product problems.
A different problem, and the same architecture
The United States does not have a national patient identifier, and accountability for a person’s cost of care moves between organisations. Both are configuration problems rather than product problems — identity is resolved probabilistically across sources, and the organisation carrying the risk is a relationship rather than a property of the record.
Accountable care
Attribution, total cost of care against benchmark, quality measures and shared savings.
Payer–provider
Prior authorisation, documentation templates, notifications and claims-driven attribution.
Capitated risk
Risk adjustment with auditable gap closure rather than opportunistic coding.
Care management
The billable care-management programmes, each with its own time threshold tracked against the record.
Payer and provider
Prior authorisation, document templates, notifications and claims — the places where payer and provider actually meet.
Value-based care
Shared savings, quality measures and the care-management billing that funds the work.
Risk and population health
Risk adjustment that is auditable, and population management that reaches the people behind the number.
Interoperability
Nationwide exchange, bulk access and the certifications an organisation holds rather than the vendor.
Compliance
Information blocking, good-faith estimates, conditions of participation — and an honest account of what a platform can and cannot hold on your behalf.
Deployment
How a US organisation actually adopts this, and what it holds versus what we hold.
One thing a US buyer should test us on
Accountability moves annually, and commvita’s attribution record carries no performance year — only a creation timestamp. That means a member’s attribution history cannot currently be reconstructed, and re-attribution overwrites rather than superseding.
It is on the platform’s own defect register with the fix named. It is stated here because it is exactly the kind of thing that should be found in due diligence rather than after signature.