DenQAIPatient-centered ownership

Policy Evidence File · local only

Collect the observations that a policy claim would need.

This workbench keeps authority, implementation, exposure, measurements, comparison, rival explanations, and owner translation in one inspectable local file. It does not upload records, calculate a policy effect, or approve causal language.

Open the workbenchReview the mechanism registerDownload blank schema
StorageActive tab and user-controlled exports only
Automatic effect estimateNone
OutputEvidence chain, gates, claim ceiling, JSON, CSV, and print

Before you begin

Keep records elsewhere; use coded locators here.

The workbench is designed for public sources and coded references to authorized local records. It checks for a small set of obvious direct identifiers and credentials before export, but it cannot determine whether a file is confidential, privileged, de-identified, contractually restricted, or legally shareable.

Exact policy dates are allowed because adoption, effect, and operation must be distinguishable. Do not include exact patient event dates or patient-level data.

Privacy boundaryEvidence methodEvaluation protocol

1 · Decision boundary

Name the policy, jurisdiction, exposure, and claim.

A broad label such as “insurance reform” is not a unit of analysis. Select one mechanism and write the decision question it is supposed to inform.

2 · Authority and implementation

Do not use one date for three different events.

Adoption, legal effect, and operational exposure can occur months or years apart. Preserve each separately.

3 · Measurement rows

Collect each link and its counterevidence.

Values remain text because one metric can be dollars, days, people, rates, counts, or a verified status. Define the unit explicitly and keep missing observations blank.

PEV-01 · Authority

What controlling text and version applies to the target?

Preferred sourceOfficial statute, regulation, order, guidance, program term, or filed rule

PEV-02 · Implementation

What operational event made the policy usable or enforceable?

Preferred sourceOfficial rule, system, report, appropriation, form, privilege, contract, or enforcement record

PEV-03 · Exposure

Which plans, practices, clinicians, patients, services, products, and periods were actually affected?

Preferred sourceAdministrative enrollment, contract, privilege, program, or transaction records

PEV-04 · Payment or benefit

Did the relevant allowed amount, benefit, award, premium use, or patient obligation change?

Preferred sourceOfficial schedule or report reconciled to contract, remittance, ledger, and deposit records

PEV-05 · Administration and cash

Did submission, denial, rework, credentialing, recoupment, payment fee, or days-to-cash change?

Preferred sourceTimestamped workflow, remittance, deposit, and contract records

PEV-06 · Workforce

Did applications, eligibility, privilege issuance, accepted offers, vacancy duration, or retained clinical days change?

Preferred sourceBoard, compact, program, recruiting, payroll, schedule, and credentialing records

PEV-07 · Practice response

Did participation, staffing, hours, clinical capacity, payer mix, capital, or owner behavior change?

Preferred sourcePractice operations, schedule, financial, contract, and decision records

PEV-08 · Patient or owner outcome

Did completed access, wait time, avoidable ED use, owner runway, or another pre-specified outcome change?

Preferred sourceStable official measure plus target-specific source records

PEV-09 · Counterfactual

What comparable unit or time series estimates what would have occurred without the policy?

Preferred sourceComparable unexposed unit, interrupted series, threshold, or qualified design record

PEV-10 · Adverse or null result

What evidence shows no change, an unintended effect, or a different mechanism?

Preferred sourceContradictory source, negative case, sensitivity test, or adverse-outcome record

4 · Calibration checks

One failed safety check can limit the conclusion.

These states are not averaged. “Met” should identify the supporting document; “Failed” should explain the defect.

PG-01

Controlling authority

The official authority, version, scope, exclusions, and jurisdiction are verified.

PG-02

Operational implementation

The required implementation event and operational date are verified rather than assumed from enactment.

PG-03

Exposure denominator

Affected and unaffected units are defined with an inspectable denominator.

PG-04

Stable measurement

Numerator, denominator, unit, geography, product, and data-generation process are stable or breaks are documented.

PG-05

Baseline and lag

The pre-period and implementation lag are long enough for the proposed mechanism.

PG-06

Comparison design

The comparison case or time-series design addresses changes that would have occurred without the policy.

PG-07

Rival explanations

Concurrent policy, economic, payer, workforce, ownership, coding, technology, and enforcement changes are tested.

PG-08

Owner translation

Public observations are connected to the target practice through exact contracts, operations, costs, cash, capacity, and household facts.

Current claim ceilingSource discovery only

Requested level: Source discovery only. This status is a workflow warning, not an expert determination or validation score.

5 · Interpretation

Write the case against your preferred explanation.

6 · Portable local record

Export the evidence—not a prediction.

JSON resumes the full local draft. CSV carries the ten measurement rows. Print creates a review copy.

Declare whether this draft contains restricted categories
Export blocked

Project code is required; Policy mechanism is required; Jurisdiction is required; Decision question is required