Three Cheers for Provider Directory Freshness
Nick Bernold
I’d like to give credit to three hospital systems for doing something that sounds simple but few do well: keeping their online provider directories current.
Why this matters: hospital system directory data is upstream of payer directories, and payer directories are upstream of a long chain of workflows that, when they break, create friction for patients: finding the right clinician, scheduling, and ultimately getting to care without surprise detours.
Systems have a commercial incentive to keep their directories (more) accurate as well. They depend on their displayed rosters to drive access, referrals, and volume. In contrast, commercial Incentives for payers to keep data current are less direct, and freshness is often very low.
For these reasons - incentives and going as far upstream as possible - J2 Health and others working in provider data have long seen the appeal of leveraging system (and provider group) directories. The catch has always been scale. Even if these directories are the right upstream source, there are thousands of them. Too many to scrape and monitor reliably “by hand”.
AI changes the game. It is now possible to scrape these sources at scale, interpret messy real-world directory structure, and (crucially) maintain longitudinal history. J2 Health has over a year of backhistory, which lets us ask - and answer - a question we couldn’t before: which systems keep their directories most current?
How we measured system and group directory freshness:
- We monitor changes monthly.
- We normalize to remove “noise” that isn’t indicative of real-world upkeep (e.g., cosmetic churn and non-substantive re-edits).
- We score each source based on consistent, meaningful change over time.
Those methods produced the results above - and the three systems listed deserve kudos for the unglamorous, continuous work of keeping provider rosters current.
