US 8,930,216 B1Grant
Method and apparatus for assessing credit for healthcare patients
Issue Date:2015-01-06
•20 Claims
•4 Drawing Sheets
Abstract
According to one example embodiment, there is provided a method and an apparatus to evaluate the credit of a healthcare patient. The example embodiment provides methods and computer systems programmed to use multiple variables that are known about a patient prior to a service being rendered to segment the patient population into finer grained groupings. These finer grained groupings allow financial factors, such as a credit score, to be a more accurate predictor. Also, according to another example embodiment, the model is not a generic model for all patients, but the variables and their parameters are specific to a particular healthcare organization's or facility's patient population. This creates a custom model that further enhances its predictiveness.
Metadata
Assignee
- Search America, Inc.
Inventors
- Steven G. Johnson
- Christopher G. Busch
Application Information
Application Number:US 13/902,528
Filing Date:2013-05-24
Priority Date:2004-09-01
Art Unit:3686
Classifications
IPC:
G06F19/00G06Q40/02G06Q50/22
Field of Search:
G06Q 50/22G06Q 50/24G06Q 40/08G06Q 10/10G06F 19/328
Patent Drawings (4 sheets)
Description
Cross-Reference to Related Applications
[0001] This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/699,789, filed on Feb. 3, 2010, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/218,069, filed on Sep. 1, 2005, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,904,306, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/606,306 filed on Sep. 1, 2004. The entire contents of each of the above reference applications are hereby expressly incorporated herein by reference in their entireties.
Field
[0002] The present subject matter relates to healthcare patient credit, and more particularly to methods and apparatuses to assess credit of healthcare patients.
Background
[0003] Healthcare entities would like to know which patients are likely to pay their bills (patient financial responsibility) and which are not likely to pay. Those deemed not able to pay will receive the same treatment as other patients, but the earlier their need is identified the sooner that the healthcare facility can get the patient into financial counseling or enrolled in an appropriate Medicaid, charity care or grant program. Also, if a patient is not likely to pay and they are not eligible for charity programs, then a healthcare facility can choose to expend fewer resources trying to collect and therefore save money.
[0004] There have been attempts to predict a patient's ability to pay using conventional “generic” credit scores, but these have met limited success. This is because each healthcare facility's patient population differs from others and a generic credit score model is insufficient to accurately predict the outcomes. A generic credit score is often too general a predictor since it treats all patient segments the same.
Brief Description of the Drawings
[0005] FIG. 1 illustrates a method according to an example embodiment.
[0006] FIG. 2 illustrates a method according to an example embodiment.
[0007] FIG. 3 illustrates a method according to an example embodiment.
Detailed Description
[0008] In the following detailed description, reference is made to the accompanying drawings that form a part hereof, and in which is shown by way of illustration specific embodiments in which the subject matter can be practiced. These embodiments are described in sufficient detail to enable those skilled in the art to practice them, and it is to be understood that other embodiments can be utilized and that structural, logical, and electrical changes can be made without departing from the scope of the inventive subject matter. Such embodiments of the inventive subject matter can be referred to, individually and/or collectively, herein by the term “invention” merely for convenience and without intending to voluntarily limit the scope of this application to any single invention or inventive concept if more than one is in fact disclosed.
[0009] The following description is, therefore, not to be taken in a limited sense, and the scope of the inventive subject matter is defined by the appended claims.
[0010] The functions or algorithms described herein are implemented in hardware, software, or a combination of software and hardware in one embodiment. The software comprises computer executable instructions stored on computer readable media such as memory or other type of storage devices. The term “computer readable media” is also used to represent electromagnetic carrier waves on which the software is transmitted. Further, such functions correspond to modules, which are software, hardware, firmware, or any combination thereof. Multiple functions are performed in one or more modules as desired, and the embodiments described are merely examples. The software is executed on a digital signal processor, an application specific integrated circuit (“ASIC”), a microprocessor, or other type of processor operating on a system, such as a personal computer, server, a router, or other device capable of processing data including network interconnection devices.
[0011] Some embodiments implement the functions in two or more specific interconnected hardware modules or devices with related control and data signals communicated between and through the modules, or as portions of an ASIC. Thus, the exemplary process flow is applicable to software, firmware, and hardware implementations.
[0012] According to one example embodiment, there is provided a method and an apparatus to evaluate the credit of a healthcare patient. The example embodiment provides methods and computer systems programmed to use multiple variables that are known about a patient prior to a service being rendered to segment the patient population into finer grained groupings. These finer grained groupings allow financial factors, such as a credit score, to be a more accurate predictor of payment. Also, according to another example embodiment, the model is not a generic model for all patients, but the variables and their parameters are specific to a particular healthcare organization's or facility's patient population. This creates a custom model that further enhances its predictiveness.
[0013] In the example embodiment, illustrated in FIG. 1 , the method 100 or programmed computing system receives information about a patient 102. The attributes can include anything that is known about the patient prior to a service being rendered. This could include patient type (i.e. inpatient, outpatient, emergency room, etc) and patient financial class (i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, commercial payer, self pay, etc), age, amount owed, marital status, etc. These variables are used to segment the patient population. These variables are also used to determine whether additional financial information from a credit bureau would increase the accuracy of the prediction of payment. Since there is a cost associated with obtaining the additional information, the benefit of the increase in predictiveness is weighed against the increased cost, and a decision is made whether to obtain the additional information.
[0014] If additional benefit is deemed positive, the financial information about the guarantor or patient is then obtained from a third party 104 or a credit bureau or similar source, for example by downloading it into the computing system determining the credit rating for the patient over a network. Such a network can include a proprietary network, a world wide network such as the Internet, or other network over which such information can be obtained. The quality and effectiveness of a data source (credit bureau) varies by geographic region. Which data source to use is determined by an algorithm called the “Bureau Selector” (see Bureau Selector section below). The information obtained can include demographic information, credit score, payment history, credit balances, mortgage status, bankruptcy, income estimates, etc. This information is used within each of the patient segments to categorize the patient 106. According to one example embodiment, the Category is a user definable grouping of patients based on likelihood of payment. For example, the categories might be “Low” probability of payment, “Medium” and “High”. Those in the low category might be further segregated into those unable to pay, those eligible for Medicaid, those eligible for charity care, etc. Each category has an associated confidence level or probability associated with it. For example, a healthcare facility might want the low category to have a 90% probability for not paying and the high category to have a 90% probability for paying.
[0015] Those unable to pay can, in some embodiments, also be offered a discount by the healthcare facility. These “Discounts for the Uninsured” can, or indeed in some cases must, be applied in a consistent manner across the patient population. According to one example embodiment, illustrated in FIG. 2 , the method 200 and computing system identifies these patients and uses healthcare facility defined rules to determine which patients are entitled to discounts 202. For example, the healthcare facility can decide that those patients with household size of 4 whose incomes are twice the Federal Poverty Guidelines Limit (FPGL) are entitled to a 75% discount and those that are at the FPGL are entitled to a 100% discount. According to another example embodiment, the method and computing system uses an estimate of a patient's income based credit attributes and an estimate of household size based on marketing/demographic data to determine discount eligibility.
[0016] In some example embodiments, periodically a healthcare organization using the credit assessment method and system will produce actual outcomes information 204 that can be used to refine the model. The outcomes information will consist of whether the patient paid their bill, how long it took to pay, how their bill was paid, etc. The model can therefore be adjusted to more accurately predict payment based on actual experience on a periodic basis or from time to time.
[0017] These categories, probabilities, patient segmenting variables, and financial information are combined with actual outcomes data to produce a highly predictive customer/user specific model 206. This outcomes feedback process is continued on a periodic basis (i.e. monthly) or at any other desired non-periodic interval in order to continue to refine the model for a particular patient population. This is also important since small or large changes in a healthcare facility's workflow can impact the outcomes (i.e. if a healthcare facility is more aggressive in collecting co-pays during registration, more will be collected causing the financial information thresholds to need to be adjusted). These changes can be accounted for in the model by continually feeding outcomes information back 208.
[0018] Bureau Selector
[0019] According to another embodiment, illustrated in FIG. 3 , a method 300 and computing systems provide for improving the accuracy of credit assessment or rating results by selecting the most accurate data source from amongst multiple data sources 304 (called the “Bureau Selector”). Each data source (e.g. credit bureau or other source of credit data) has regional strengths and weaknesses, especially in the accuracy of demographic information. According to one example embodiment, the most accurate demographic information can be obtained from the most accurate data source in a region. Accordingly, methods 300 and computing systems assess a data source's demographic accuracy 302.
[0020] The type of information that is gathered by a credit bureau is protected by multiple laws (GLB and FCRA). The information can only be used for a “permissible purpose” under the law, which includes things like collections and account review. It is not typically permissible to randomly select credit files and call people to see if the information is accurate. Instead, the accuracy must be measured as a by-product of a permissible transaction. For example, in the course of pursuing collections with an account, information in the credit report can be validated.
[0021] According to one example embodiment, the accuracy of a bureau's data is assessed 302 by using the outcomes information that is recorded by a customer/user of the credit assessment method and system. For example, Healthcare facility A is a customer/user. They use credit report information from different credit bureaus (via the above described method and system) for a permissible purpose (collections). According to one example embodiment, if an account is paid, either partially or in full, then the demographic information can be deemed to be valid because the healthcare facility was able to contact the patient either via the address or phone. If the healthcare facility receives returned mail, then the demographic information can be deemed not valid since the address did not work.
[0022] According to another example embodiment the method 300 and system assesses each data source 302 in each geographic region by looking at the first 3 digits of a patient's zip code (called an SCF). Each zip code SCF can be seeded with an initial bureau ordering (presumed strengths gleaned from external sources or the data sources themselves). As each transaction occurs and the method and system receives outcomes information, points for or against a bureau are awarded based on whether a data sources data resulted in a patient paying their bill. In this way, the ordering of data sources in a particular geography (SCF) can continually be adjusted.
[0023] It is emphasized that the Abstract is provided to comply with 37 C.F.R. .sctn.1.72(b) requiring an Abstract that will allow the reader to quickly ascertain the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. It is submitted with the understanding that it will not be used to interpret or limit the scope or meaning of the claims.
[0024] In the foregoing Detailed Description, various features are grouped together in a single embodiment to streamline the disclosure. This method of disclosure is not to be interpreted as reflecting an intention that the claimed embodiments of the invention require more features than are expressly recited in each claim. Rather, as the following claims reflect, inventive subject matter lies in less than all features of a single disclosed embodiment. Thus, the following claims are hereby incorporated into the Detailed Description, with each claim standing on its own as a separate embodiment.
[0025] It will be readily understood to those skilled in the art that various other changes in the details, material, and arrangements of the parts and method stages which have been described and illustrated in order to explain the nature of this inventive subject matter can be made without departing from the principles and scope of the inventive subject matter as expressed in the subjoined claims.
Claims
What is claimed is:
1. A computing system comprising:
one or more processors configured to execute instructions, wherein the instructions are configured to cause the computing system to:
receive attribute information for a patient of a healthcare facility;
determine a patient population segment for the patient based at least in part on the received attribute information and a custom model for the healthcare facility, wherein the custom model groups patients of the healthcare facility based on attributes of the patients of the healthcare facility; and
generate a prediction of payment for the patient based at least in part on the determined patient population segment.
2. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the computing system to:
determine whether additional financial information would increase the accuracy of the prediction of payment; and
in response to determining that additional financial information would increase the accuracy of the prediction of payment:
access one or more financial information sources to obtain at least some of the additional financial information;
determine one or more patient categories for the patient based on the at least some of the additional financial information; and
update the prediction of payment for the patient based at least in part on the one or more determined patient categories.
3. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the computing system to:
determine whether the patient is eligible for a discount based at least in part on the prediction of payment for the patient and one or more rules defined by the healthcare facility.
4. The computing system of claim 2, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the computing system to at least:
determine whether the patient is eligible for a discount based at least in part on an estimated income of the patient and an estimated household size of the patient.
5. The computing system of claim 4, wherein the estimated income of the patient is based on additional financial information accessed from one or more financial information sources.
6. The computing system of claim 4, wherein the estimated household size of the patient is based on marketing demographic data.
7. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the computing system to at least:
access actual patient payment outcome information for the healthcare facility; and
update a custom payment prediction model configured to segment patients of the healthcare facility, wherein the updating is based at least in part on the actual patient payment outcome information.
8. The computing system of claim 7, wherein the actual patient payment outcome information for the healthcare facility includes at least one of an indication of whether the patient paid, an indication of how long it took the patient to pay, or a method of payment.
9. The computing system of claim 2, wherein the one or more financial information sources are accessed based on accuracy of data stored by respective financial information sources.
10. The computing system of claim 9, wherein the accuracy of data stored by respective financial information sources is based at least in part on accuracy of regional or demographic information stored by the respective financial information sources.
11. The computing system of claim 1, wherein determining the patient population segment for the patient is based at least in part on segmentation variables of the healthcare facility.
12. A method comprising:
accessing, by a computing system having one or more hardware processors, attribute information for a patient of a healthcare facility;
determining, by the computing system, a patient population segment for the patient based at least in part on the attribute information and a custom model for the healthcare facility, wherein the custom model is configured to group patients of the healthcare facility based on attributes of the patients of the healthcare facility; and
generating, by the computing system, a prediction of payment for the patient based at least in part on the determined patient population segment.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein determining the patient population segment for the patient is based at least in part on segmentation variables of the healthcare facility.
14. The method of claim 12, further comprising:
accessing, by the computing system, actual patient payment outcome information for the healthcare facility; and
updating, by the computing system, a custom payment prediction model configured to segment patients of the healthcare facility, wherein the updating is based at least in part on the actual patient payment outcome information.
15. The method of claim 12, further comprising:
determining, by the computing system, whether additional financial information would increase accuracy of the prediction of payment; and
in response to determining that additional financial information would increase the accuracy of the prediction of payment:
accessing, by the computing system, one or more financial information sources to obtain at least some of the additional financial information;
determining, by the computing system, one or more patient categories for the patient based on the at least some of the additional financial information; and
updating, by the computing system, the prediction of payment for the patient based at least in part on the one or more determined patient categories.
16. The method of claim 15, wherein the one or more financial information sources are accessed based on accuracy of data stored by respective financial information sources.
17. Non-transitory computer storage having stored thereon computer-executable instructions configured for execution on a processing system to cause the processing system to:
access attribute information for a patient of a healthcare facility;
determine a patient population segment for the patient based at least in part on the attribute information and a custom model for the healthcare facility, wherein the custom model is configured to group patients of the healthcare facility based on attributes of the patients of the healthcare facility; and
generate a prediction of payment for the patient based at least in part on the determined patient population segment.
18. The non-transitory computer storage of claim 17, wherein the computer-executable instructions are further configured to cause the processing system to:
determine whether the patient is eligible for a discount based at least in part on the prediction of payment for the patient and one or more rules defined by the healthcare facility.
19. The non-transitory computer storage of claim 17, wherein the computer-executable instructions are further configured to cause the processing system to:
determine whether the patient is eligible for a discount based at least in part on an estimated income of the patient and an estimated household size of the patient.
20. The non-transitory computer storage of claim 17, wherein the computer-executable instructions are further configured to cause the processing system to:
access actual patient payment outcome information for the healthcare facility; and
update a custom payment prediction model configured to segment patients of the healthcare facility, wherein the updating is based at least in part on the actual patient payment outcome information.
Patent Citations (266)
| Patent | Date | Inventor | Cited By |
|---|---|---|---|
| US3316395(A) | 1967-04-01 | Lavin et al. | Applicant |
| US4346442(A) | 1982-08-01 | Musmanno | Applicant |
| US4491725(A) | 1985-01-01 | Pritchard | Applicant |
| US4812628(A) | 1989-03-01 | Boston et al. | Applicant |
| US4872113(A) | 1989-10-01 | Dinerstein | Applicant |
| US4947028(A) | 1990-08-01 | Gorog | Applicant |
| US5239462(A) | 1993-08-01 | Jones et al. | Applicant |
| US5301105(A) | 1994-04-01 | Cummings, Jr. | Applicant |
| US5500513(A) | 1996-03-01 | Langhans et al. | Applicant |
| US5557514(A) | 1996-09-01 | Seare et al. | Applicant |
| US5583760(A) | 1996-12-01 | Klesse | Applicant |
| US5611052(A) | 1997-03-01 | Dykstra et al. | Applicant |
| US5644778(A) | 1997-07-01 | Burks et al. | Applicant |
| US5699527(A) | 1997-12-01 | Davidson | Applicant |
| US5704044(A) | 1997-12-01 | Tarter et al. | Applicant |
| US5764923(A) | 1998-06-01 | Tallman et al. | Applicant |
| US5832447(A) | 1998-11-01 | Rieker et al. | Applicant |
| US5870721(A) | 1999-02-01 | Norris | Applicant |
| US5878403(A) | 1999-03-01 | DeFrancesco et al. | Applicant |
| US5884287(A) | 1999-03-01 | Edesess | Applicant |
| US5903830(A) | 1999-05-01 | Joao et al. | Applicant |
| US5903881(A) | 1999-05-01 | Schrader et al. | Applicant |
| US5907828(A) | 1999-05-01 | Meyer et al. | Applicant |
| US5926800(A) | 1999-07-01 | Baronowski et al. | Applicant |
| US5930759(A) | 1999-07-01 | Moore et al. | Applicant |
| US5930776(A) | 1999-07-01 | Dykstra et al. | Applicant |
| US5933809(A) | 1999-08-01 | Hunt et al. | Applicant |
| US5940812(A) | 1999-08-01 | Tengel et al. | Applicant |
| US5966699(A) | 1999-10-01 | Zandi | Applicant |
| US5970478(A) | 1999-10-01 | Walker et al. | Applicant |
| US5995947(A) | 1999-11-01 | Fraser et al. | Applicant |
| US5999596(A) | 1999-12-01 | Walker et al. | Applicant |
| US6014632(A) | 2000-01-01 | Gamble et al. | Applicant |
| US6018723(A) | 2000-01-01 | Siegel et al. | Applicant |
| US6021943(A) | 2000-02-01 | Chastain | Applicant |
| US6029149(A) | 2000-02-01 | Dykstra et al. | Applicant |
| US6044351(A) | 2000-03-01 | Jones | Applicant |
| US6044352(A) | 2000-03-01 | Deavers | Applicant |
| US6067522(A) | 2000-05-01 | Warady et al. | Applicant |
| US6073104(A) | 2000-06-01 | Field | Applicant |
| US6088686(A) | 2000-07-01 | Walker et al. | Applicant |
| US6098052(A) | 2000-08-01 | Kosiba et al. | Applicant |
| US6108641(A) | 2000-08-01 | Kenna et al. | Applicant |
| US6128602(A) | 2000-10-01 | Northington et al. | Applicant |
| US6129273(A) | 2000-10-01 | Shah | Applicant |
| US6144948(A) | 2000-11-01 | Walker et al. | Applicant |
| US6163770(A) | 2000-12-01 | Gamble et al. | Applicant |
| US6171112(B1) | 2001-01-01 | Clark et al. | Applicant |
| US6185543(B1) | 2001-02-01 | Galperin et al. | Applicant |
| US6202053(B1) | 2001-03-01 | Christiansen et al. | Applicant |
| US6208973(B1) | 2001-03-01 | Boyer et al. | Applicant |
| US6233566(B1) | 2001-05-01 | Levine et al. | Applicant |
| US6311169(B2) | 2001-10-01 | Duhon | Applicant |
| US6327578(B1) | 2001-12-01 | Linehan | Applicant |
| US6341265(B1) | 2002-01-01 | Provost et al. | Applicant |
| US6343271(B1) | 2002-01-01 | Peterson et al. | Applicant |
| US6374229(B1) | 2002-04-01 | Lowrey et al. | Applicant |
| US6374230(B1) | 2002-04-01 | Walker et al. | Applicant |
| US6385594(B1) | 2002-05-01 | Lebda et al. | Applicant |
| US6405181(B2) | 2002-06-01 | Lent et al. | Applicant |
| US6422462(B1) | 2002-07-01 | Cohen | Applicant |
| US6453297(B1) | 2002-09-01 | Burks et al. | Applicant |
| US6456979(B1) | 2002-09-01 | Flagg | Applicant |
| US6456983(B1) | 2002-09-01 | Keyes et al. | Applicant |
| US6513018(B1) | 2003-01-01 | Culhane | Applicant |
| US6587841(B1) | 2003-07-01 | DeFrancesco | Applicant |
| US6598030(B1) | 2003-07-01 | Siegel et al. | Applicant |
| US6611816(B2) | 2003-08-01 | Lebda et al. | Applicant |
| US6684093(B2) | 2004-01-01 | Kuth | Applicant |
| US6826535(B2) | 2004-11-01 | Wood et al. | Applicant |
| US6847942(B1) | 2005-01-01 | Land et al. | Applicant |
| US6901406(B2) | 2005-05-01 | Nabe et al. | Applicant |
| US7003491(B2) | 2006-02-01 | Starkman | Applicant |
| US7016856(B1) | 2006-03-01 | Wiggins | Applicant |
| US7072842(B2) | 2006-07-01 | Provost et al. | Applicant |
| US7133840(B1) | 2006-11-01 | Kenna et al. | Applicant |
| US7171371(B2) | 2007-01-01 | Goldstein | Applicant |
| US7174302(B2) | 2007-02-01 | Patricelli et al. | Applicant |
| US7181427(B1) | 2007-02-01 | DeFrancesco | Applicant |
| US7191150(B1) | 2007-03-01 | Shao et al. | Applicant |
| US7191451(B2) | 2007-03-01 | Nakagawa | Applicant |
| US7197468(B1) | 2007-03-01 | Patricelli et al. | Applicant |
| US7246068(B2) | 2007-07-01 | Thomas, Jr. | Applicant |
| US7249076(B1) | 2007-07-01 | Pendleton et al. | Applicant |
| US7295988(B1) | 2007-11-01 | Reeves | Applicant |
| US7298872(B2) | 2007-11-01 | Glisson | Applicant |
| US7305359(B2) | 2007-12-01 | Bonnell | Applicant |
| US7310617(B1) | 2007-12-01 | Cunningham | Applicant |
| US7328276(B2) | 2008-02-01 | Alisuag | Applicant |
| US7333937(B2) | 2008-02-01 | Baldwin, Jr. et al. | Applicant |
| US7346576(B2) | 2008-03-01 | Lent et al. | Applicant |
| US7379913(B2) | 2008-05-01 | Steele et al. | Applicant |
| US7380707(B1) | 2008-06-01 | Fredman | Applicant |
| US7383215(B1) | 2008-06-01 | Navarro et al. | Applicant |
| US7451095(B1) | 2008-11-01 | Bradley et al. | Applicant |
| US7505939(B2) | 2009-03-01 | Lent et al. | Applicant |
| US7527967(B2) | 2009-05-01 | Chao et al. | Applicant |
| US7556192(B2) | 2009-07-01 | Wokaty, Jr. | Applicant |
| US7630933(B2) | 2009-12-01 | Peterson et al. | Applicant |
| US7689506(B2) | 2010-03-01 | Fei et al. | Examiner |
| US7698153(B2) | 2010-04-01 | Wiggins | Applicant |
| US7711636(B2) | 2010-05-01 | Robida et al. | Applicant |
| US7747559(B2) | 2010-06-01 | Leitner et al. | Applicant |
| US7761379(B2) | 2010-07-01 | Zoldi et al. | Applicant |
| US7765148(B2) | 2010-07-01 | German et al. | Applicant |
| US7797172(B2) | 2010-09-01 | Fitzgerald et al. | Applicant |
| US7814004(B2) | 2010-10-01 | Haggerty et al. | Applicant |
| US7840484(B2) | 2010-11-01 | Haggerty et al. | Applicant |
| US7860786(B2) | 2010-12-01 | Blackburn et al. | Applicant |
| US7873528(B2) | 2011-01-01 | Bregante et al. | Applicant |
| US7885836(B2) | 2011-02-01 | Pendleton et al. | Applicant |
| US7904306(B2) | 2011-03-01 | Johnson et al. | Applicant |
| US7941363(B2) | 2011-05-01 | Tanaka et al. | Applicant |
| US7970679(B2) | 2011-06-01 | Kasower | Applicant |
| US7983932(B2) | 2011-07-01 | Kane | Applicant |
| US7991689(B1) | 2011-08-01 | Brunzell et al. | Applicant |
| US8001042(B1) | 2011-08-01 | Brunzell et al. | Applicant |
| US8036979(B1) | 2011-10-01 | Torrez et al. | Applicant |
| US8060424(B2) | 2011-11-01 | Kasower | Applicant |
| US8078524(B2) | 2011-12-01 | Crawford et al. | Applicant |
| US8185408(B2) | 2012-05-01 | Baldwin, Jr. et al. | Applicant |
| US8195549(B2) | 2012-06-01 | Kasower | Applicant |
| US8234498(B2) | 2012-07-01 | Britti et al. | Applicant |
| US8315943(B2) | 2012-11-01 | Torrez et al. | Applicant |
| US8364588(B2) | 2013-01-01 | Celka et al. | Applicant |
| US8452611(B1) | 2013-05-01 | Johnson et al. | Applicant |
| US2001/0014868(A1) | 2001-08-01 | Herz et al. | Applicant |
| US2001/0029482(A1) | 2001-10-01 | Tealdi et al. | Applicant |
| US2001/0034618(A1) | 2001-10-01 | Kessler et al. | Applicant |
| US2001/0037289(A1) | 2001-11-01 | Mayr et al. | Applicant |
| US2001/0039523(A1) | 2001-11-01 | Iwamoto | Applicant |
| US2002/0010594(A1) | 2002-01-01 | Levine | Applicant |
| US2002/0077869(A1) | 2002-06-01 | Doyle et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0077964(A1) | 2002-06-01 | Brody et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0091650(A1) | 2002-07-01 | Ellis | Applicant |
| US2002/0099635(A1) | 2002-07-01 | Guiragosian | Applicant |
| US2002/0099641(A1) | 2002-07-01 | Mills et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0103680(A1) | 2002-08-01 | Newman | Applicant |
| US2002/0107849(A1) | 2002-08-01 | Hickey et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0120776(A1) | 2002-08-01 | Eggebraaten et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0133503(A1) | 2002-09-01 | Amar et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0138417(A1) | 2002-09-01 | Lawrence | Applicant |
| US2002/0147617(A1) | 2002-10-01 | Schoenbaum et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0147669(A1) | 2002-10-01 | Taylor et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0184054(A1) | 2002-12-01 | Cox et al. | Applicant |
| US2002/0188478(A1) | 2002-12-01 | Breeland et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0018549(A1) | 2003-01-01 | Fei et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0028402(A1) | 2003-02-01 | Ulrich et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0036926(A1) | 2003-02-01 | Starkey et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0037054(A1) | 2003-02-01 | Dutta et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0041019(A1) | 2003-02-01 | Vagim et al. | Examiner |
| US2003/0046112(A1) | 2003-03-01 | Dutta et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0050795(A1) | 2003-03-01 | Baldwin et al. | Examiner |
| US2003/0050796(A1) | 2003-03-01 | Baldwin, Jr. et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0078877(A1) | 2003-04-01 | Beirne et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0163416(A1) | 2003-08-01 | Kitajima | Applicant |
| US2003/0208412(A1) | 2003-11-01 | Hillestad et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0219709(A1) | 2003-11-01 | Olenick et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0229507(A1) | 2003-12-01 | Perge | Applicant |
| US2003/0233259(A1) | 2003-12-01 | Mistretta et al. | Applicant |
| US2003/0233278(A1) | 2003-12-01 | Marshall | Applicant |
| US2003/0236747(A1) | 2003-12-01 | Sager | Applicant |
| US2004/0006489(A1) | 2004-01-01 | Bynon | Applicant |
| US2004/0030649(A1) | 2004-02-01 | Nelson et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0049473(A1) | 2004-03-01 | Gower et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0054619(A1) | 2004-03-01 | Watson et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0064402(A1) | 2004-04-01 | Dreyer et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0073456(A1) | 2004-04-01 | Gottlieb et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0078228(A1) | 2004-04-01 | Fitzgerald et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0111292(A1) | 2004-06-01 | Hutchins | Applicant |
| US2004/0117211(A1) | 2004-06-01 | Bonnell | Applicant |
| US2004/0148203(A1) | 2004-07-01 | Whitaker et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0172313(A1) | 2004-09-01 | Stein et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0177030(A1) | 2004-09-01 | Shoham | Applicant |
| US2004/0204948(A1) | 2004-10-01 | Singletary et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0215556(A1) | 2004-10-01 | Merkley, Jr. et al. | Applicant |
| US2004/0230534(A1) | 2004-11-01 | McGough | Applicant |
| US2004/0267660(A1) | 2004-12-01 | Greenwood et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0015280(A1) | 2005-01-01 | Gabel et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0038670(A1) | 2005-02-01 | Takkar et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0049991(A1) | 2005-03-01 | Aggarwal | Applicant |
| US2005/0065874(A1) | 2005-03-01 | Lefner et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0086071(A1) | 2005-04-01 | Fox, Jr. et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0086072(A1) | 2005-04-01 | Fox, Jr. et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0091080(A1) | 2005-04-01 | Biats, Jr. | Applicant |
| US2005/0137912(A1) | 2005-06-01 | Rao et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0187948(A1) | 2005-08-01 | Monitzer et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0197954(A1) | 2005-09-01 | Maitland et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0209880(A1) | 2005-09-01 | Drelicharz et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0209922(A1) | 2005-09-01 | Hofmeister | Applicant |
| US2005/0228748(A1) | 2005-10-01 | Togher et al. | Applicant |
| US2005/0288964(A1) | 2005-12-01 | Lutzen et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0031158(A1) | 2006-02-01 | Orman | Applicant |
| US2006/0074991(A1) | 2006-04-01 | Lussier et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0080139(A1) | 2006-04-01 | Mainzer | Applicant |
| US2006/0080233(A1) | 2006-04-01 | Mendelovich et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0080251(A1) | 2006-04-01 | Fried et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0100954(A1) | 2006-05-01 | Schoen | Applicant |
| US2006/0155639(A1) | 2006-07-01 | Lynch et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0173772(A1) | 2006-08-01 | Hayes et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0178971(A1) | 2006-08-01 | Owen et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0178983(A1) | 2006-08-01 | Nice et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0212315(A1) | 2006-09-01 | Wiggins | Applicant |
| US2006/0235743(A1) | 2006-10-01 | Long et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0247947(A1) | 2006-11-01 | Suringa | Applicant |
| US2006/0282359(A1) | 2006-12-01 | Nobili et al. | Applicant |
| US2006/0293923(A1) | 2006-12-01 | Farris | Applicant |
| US2007/0005402(A1) | 2007-01-01 | Kennedy et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0005403(A1) | 2007-01-01 | Kennedy et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0027778(A1) | 2007-02-01 | Schellhammer et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0118410(A1) | 2007-05-01 | Nadai | Applicant |
| US2007/0124235(A1) | 2007-05-01 | Chakraborty et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0130070(A1) | 2007-06-01 | Williams | Applicant |
| US2007/0174122(A1) | 2007-07-01 | Howard et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0198336(A1) | 2007-08-01 | Thompson | Applicant |
| US2007/0198407(A1) | 2007-08-01 | Winter | Applicant |
| US2007/0214005(A1) | 2007-09-01 | Kennedy | Applicant |
| US2007/0255646(A1) | 2007-11-01 | Morris et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0258626(A1) | 2007-11-01 | Reiner | Applicant |
| US2007/0279187(A1) | 2007-12-01 | Hekmatpour et al. | Applicant |
| US2007/0294126(A1) | 2007-12-01 | Maggio | Applicant |
| US2007/0299699(A1) | 2007-12-01 | Policelli et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0010096(A1) | 2008-01-01 | Patterson et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0015979(A1) | 2008-01-01 | Bentley | Applicant |
| US2008/0059224(A1) | 2008-03-01 | Schechter | Applicant |
| US2008/0059317(A1) | 2008-03-01 | Chandran et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0065569(A1) | 2008-03-01 | Dutt et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0086400(A1) | 2008-04-01 | Ardelean et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0109315(A1) | 2008-05-01 | Huang et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0120133(A1) | 2008-05-01 | Krishnaswami et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0133325(A1) | 2008-06-01 | De et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0183504(A1) | 2008-07-01 | Highley | Applicant |
| US2008/0189202(A1) | 2008-08-01 | Zadoorian et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0270294(A1) | 2008-10-01 | Lent et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0270295(A1) | 2008-10-01 | Lent et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0288283(A1) | 2008-11-01 | Baldwin, Jr. et al. | Applicant |
| US2008/0294540(A1) | 2008-11-01 | Celka et al. | Applicant |
| US2009/0044279(A1) | 2009-02-01 | Crawford et al. | Applicant |
| US2009/0048877(A1) | 2009-02-01 | Binns et al. | Applicant |
| US2009/0094055(A1) | 2009-04-01 | Gage, Jr. et al. | Applicant |
| US2009/0099960(A1) | 2009-04-01 | Robida et al. | Applicant |
| US2009/0138277(A1) | 2009-05-01 | Warren et al. | Applicant |
| US2009/0157435(A1) | 2009-06-01 | Seib | Applicant |
| US2009/0177480(A1) | 2009-07-01 | Chen et al. | Applicant |
| US2009/0222308(A1) | 2009-09-01 | Zoldi et al. | Applicant |
| US2009/0276244(A1) | 2009-11-01 | Baldwin, Jr. et al. | Applicant |
| US2009/0281827(A1) | 2009-11-01 | Pendleton et al. | Applicant |
| US2010/0063907(A1) | 2010-03-01 | Savani et al. | Applicant |
| US2010/0142698(A1) | 2010-06-01 | Spottiswoode et al. | Applicant |
| US2011/0010189(A1) | 2011-01-01 | Dean et al. | Applicant |
| US2011/0112873(A1) | 2011-05-01 | Allen et al. | Applicant |
| US2012/0066084(A1) | 2012-03-01 | Sneyders | Applicant |
| US2012/0158574(A1) | 2012-06-01 | Brunzell et al. | Applicant |
| US2012/0215682(A1) | 2012-08-01 | Lent et al. | Applicant |
| US2013/0006825(A1) | 2013-01-01 | Robida et al. | Applicant |
| US2013/0080315(A1) | 2013-03-01 | Torrez et al. | Applicant |
| US2013/0173450(A1) | 2013-07-01 | Celka et al. | Applicant |
| WO94/12943 | 1994-06-01 | Applicant | |
| WO95/12857 | 1995-05-01 | Applicant | |
| WO99/46710 | 1999-09-01 | Applicant | |
| WO1/04821 | 2001-01-01 | Applicant | |
| WO1/41355 | 2001-06-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2/13047 | 2002-02-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2004/114160 | 2004-12-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2008/021061 | 2008-02-01 | Applicant | |
| WO2008/147918 | 2008-12-01 | Applicant |
Non-Patent Literature (117)
- “ACS Company Birch & Davis Wins Texas CHIP Contract,” PR Newswire, Section: Financial News, 3 pgs., Dallas, TX, May 17, 2000.Applicant
- “An Even Better Solution to Financing Elective Surgery . . . ”, Unicorn Financial, pp. 7, http://web.archive.org/web/20000816161359/http://www.unicornfinancial.com/, as downloaded Oct. 15, 2008.Applicant
- “Authorizing Safety Net Public Health Programs,” Hearing before the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventh Congress, First Session, Serial No. 107-57, dated Aug. 1, 2001, 226 pgs.Applicant
- An Expert System for Determining Medicaid Eligibility, Journal of Medical Systems, vol. 12, Nov. 5, 1988, in 10 pages.Applicant
- Barry, Ellen, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Lipo,” The Boston Phoenix, News & Opinion, dated Apr. 6, 1998, as downloaded at http://weeklywire.com/ww/04-06-98/boston—feature—1.html (1 of 12) [Oct. 15, 2008 2:35:25 PM].Applicant
- Belford, Terrence, “Technology Quarterly: Computers, Internet Speeds Credit Checks System Tailored for Doctors, Dentists,” The Globe and Mail (Canada), Section: Report on Business Special Reports, p. C10, Mar. 18, 1997.Applicant
- “Birch & Davis Wins Texas CHIP Contract,” Birch & Davis Press Release, dated Jan. 4, 2000, 3 pgs., as downloaded from http://web.archive.org/web/20010304065515/www.birchdavis.com/txchip.htm (1 of 3) [Oct. 20, 2008 9:49:18 AM].Applicant
- Boss, Shira J. “Elective Surgery Without the Plastic: Low-Interest Medical Financing Provides Alternative to Credit Cards,” factiva, Crain's New York Business, 2 pgs., dated Jun. 22, 1998.Applicant
- Broward County CAP Grant Application, as printed on Aug. 10, 2009, 41 pgs.Applicant
- Burr Ph.D., et al., “Utility Payments as Alternative Credit Data: A Reality Check”, Asset Builders of America, Inc., Oct. 5, 2006, pp. 1-18, Washington, D.C.Applicant
- Butkus, Charles, “System Cuts Medicaid Processing to 11 Cents a Claim”, ComputerWorld, May 21, 1975, pp. 51 and 53.Applicant
- Calnan, Christopher, “Tenet, Fair Isaac invest $20M in startup,” MHT, Mass High Tech: The Journal of New England Technology, dated Jul. 23, 2007, 2 pgs.Applicant
- Capps et al., “Recent Changes in Texas Welfare and Work, Child Care and Child Welfare Systems,” Assessing the New Federalism, The Urban Institute, State Update No. 1, 24 pgs., Jun. 2001.Applicant
- CAPStone Newsletter, Sep. 2001, 8 pgs., as downloaded from http://web.archive.org/web/20011213115738/www.capcommunity.hrsa.gov/Newsletter/Newsletter12.htm (1 of 8) [Oct. 18, 2008 2:39:47 PM].Applicant
- Card Marketing; Use the Latest CRM Tools and Techniques, www.CardForum.com, vol. 5 No. 10, Dec. 2001.Applicant
- “Charity Care Policy and Procedure”, Report to the Community for the Year 2002, John T. Mather Memorial Hospital, Port Jefferson, NY, 2002.Applicant
- Cheney, Karen, “Fix Your Nose, If You Wish, But Not With This New Loan,” Money Magazine, vol. 27, No. 5, 1 pg., dated May 1, 1998.Applicant
- Compliance Data Systems, Inc. T-PASS Catalogue Profile, Sep. 8, 1994, available at http://www.compliancedata.com/catalogue.html.Applicant
- “Current System Architecture and Functional Specifications”, TDHS System, Jul. 3, 2000.Applicant
- DentalFinancing.com, “Financial services for patients and dental professionals,”, 7 pgs., as downloaded from http://web.archive.org/web/20010607151954/www.dentalfinancing.com/dentist/index.asp (1 of 2) ]Oct. 15, 2008 3:55:16 PM].Applicant
- Dietz, Ellen, “Dental Office Management,” 8 pgs., pp. 316-321, Copyright 2000.Applicant
- eFunds Introduces QualiFileSM, Deluxe Corporation, Sep. 1999, Milwaukee, WI.Applicant
- Electronic Privacy Information Center, “The Fair Credit Reporting Act” 15 USC 1681 (1992), 10 pgs., as downloaded from http://epic.org/privacy/financial/fcra.html on Mar. 19, 2008.Applicant
- Ellwood, Marilyn, “The Medicaid Eligibility Maze: Coverage Expands, but Enrollment Problems Persist, Findings from a Five-State Study,” Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Occasional Paper No. 30, 56 pgs., Dec. 1999.Applicant
- “Enterprise Technology Management Architecture”, Texas Department of Human Services, Version 1.0, Aug. 31, 1999, pp. 22.Applicant
- Experian, Custom Strategist and Qualifile from Funds, 2000, in 2 pages.Applicant
- “Factual Data Corp. Completes First Interface with Automated Underwriting System for Subprime Lenders”, PR Newswire, Loveland, CO, Jan. 17, 2000.Applicant
- Felsenthal, Edward, “Health Costs; Managed Care Helps Curb Costs, Study Says,” The Wall Street Journal, dated Aug. 12, 1991.Applicant
- “Financing Medical Procedures A Lucrative But Risky Business,” Credit Risk Management Report, vol. 10, Issue 15, 2 pgs., dated Aug. 7, 2000.Applicant
- Frohlich, Robert M., Jr., “Credit Scoring in a Hospital Setting”, University of North Florida Thesis, Paper 97, Apr. 1997, pp. 82.Applicant
- Gilje, Shelby, “Credit Agency Moving Into Health Care,” NewsRoom, The Seattle Times, Section: Scene, Mar. 22, 1995, pp. 3, http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?rs=WLW8.03&ss+CNT&rp=%2fWelc . . . .Applicant
- Goldstein, Jacob, “The Newest Vital Sign: Your Credit Score,” The Wall Street Journal, Health Blog, as viewed at http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/03/18/the-newest-vital-sign-your-cr . . . , 3 pgs.Applicant
- “HelpWorks Family of Products Offers Solutions for Providers of Social Services”, Software Announcement, Letter No. 297-476, Nov. 11, 1997, http://www.www-304.ibm.com/jct01003c/cgi-bin/common/ssi/ssialias?infotype=an&subtype=ca&htmlfid=897/ENUS297-476&appname=xldata&language=enus.Applicant
- “HelpWorks: One-Stop Screening for the Benefits Your Clients Need”, Peter Martin Associates, Inc. website, HelpWorks description, Jul. 11, 2000, http://web.archive.org/web/20000711013829/http://www.petermartin.com/Products/HelpWorks/hw—info02.html.Applicant
- Henry, M.D., Kimberly A., “The Face-Lift Sourcebook,” copyright 2000, 3 pgs. (p. 207).Applicant
- “Implementation Advance Planning Document”, Implementation Advance Planning Document, TIERS, Texas Department of Human Services, Eric M. Bost, Commissioner, May 2000, pp. 128.Applicant
- “Improving the Implementation of State Children's Health Insurance Programs for Adolescents Report of an Invitational Conference Sponsored by the American Academy of Pediatrics, Section on Adolescent Health,” Pediatrics, Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Section on Adolescent Health, Sep. 26-27, 1999, 9 pages.Applicant
- Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS), Medi-Cal Eligibility Procedures Manual, Apr. 2000, pp. 164.Applicant
- IndiCareTM, On-Line Patient Assistant Program, Website Users Manual, JBI Associates, LLC, 1997.Applicant
- Jones, Sandra, “Small Software Firm Aiming for Internet”, ChicagoBusiness.com, Mar. 13, 2000.Applicant
- Kent, Heather, “Huge declines in price as competition heats up in Vancouver's booming laser-surgery market,” CMAJ, Oct. 5, 1999; 161 (7), pp. 857-858.Applicant
- Lavelle, Marianne, “Health Plan Debate Turning to Privacy Some Call for Safeguards on Medical Disclosure. Is a Federal Law Necessary?” The National Law Journal, vol. 16, No. 39, dated May 30, 1994, as downloaded from http://web2.westlaw.com/result/.Applicant
- Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., “1998 Health Care Survey of DoD Beneficiaries: Technical Manual,” Jul. 1999.Applicant
- McGovern, Celeste, Jayhawk Medical Acceptance. (Brief Article), Alberta Report, 1 pg., dated Aug. 23, 1999.Applicant
- McLaughlin, Nancy H., “Homeless, pregnant and alone Dana Sides knows her baby is likely to come in a month, but she has no idea where she will go after leaving the hospital,” NewsRoom, Greensboro News & Record (NC), Section: General News, dated Dec. 6, 2001.Applicant
- “MediCredit Announces Major Investment from Medstone; Financing Will Enable Dramatic Expansion of Online Services,” Business Wire, pp. 2, dated May 12, 2000.Applicant
- MediCredit, Patient Financing, “Thought you couldn't afford Cosmetic Surgery?,” 3 pgs., as downloaded from http://web.archive.org/web/19970601060333/http://www.medicredit.com/ (1 of 2) [Oct. 15, 2008 3:16:31 PM].Applicant
- Mowll, Charles, “Setting a Credit Policy for Patient Accounts”, Healthcare Financial Management, Jan. 1989, pp. 3.Applicant
- Mowll, Charles, “Knowing How and When to Grant Credit Healthcare Organizations”, Healthcare Financial Management, Feb. 1989, pp. 4.Applicant
- Network Sciences Website, Community Health and Social Services Information System (CHASSIS) and Medicaider software by Network Sciences, LLC, on sale and/or in public use in or around 2000, http://www.netsci.net/index.asp.Applicant
- Newsom v. Vanderbilt University et al., Opinion, 453 F.Supp. 401 (1978), Jun. 1, 1978, pp. 24.Applicant
- NewsRoom, Insurance Regulator, State Survey, “CIGNA Report Withdrawn As Foe Sees Opening,” Sep. 9, 1996, vol. 8, Issue 34, 4pgs, as downloaded at http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?rs=WLW8.03&ss=CNT&rp=%2fWelc . . . on Mar. 19, 2008.Applicant
- “Patients May be Frauds”, The Victoria Advocate, Victoria, Texas, 138th Year—No. 194, p. 10A, Nov. 17, 1983.Applicant
- Pennsylvania Law Weekly, “Discriminating Against Victims Admitting Domestic Abuse Can Lead to Denial of Insurance Coverage,” vol. XVIII, No. 26, dated Jun. 26, 1996, 2 pgs., as downloaded from http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?rs=WLW8.Applicant
- “Peter Martin Releases HelpWorks Web Edition”, Business Wire, Chicago, Sep. 28, 1999.Applicant
- “Response Automated Decision Systems”, responsecorp.com, Inc., Press Release, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Jun. 22, 2000, http://web.archive.org/web/20010420061717/http://www.responsecorp.com/news.html.Applicant
- Rubin, Rita, “Cosmetic Surgery on Credit, Finance plans let patients reconstruct now, pay later,” The Dallas Morning News, 2 pgs., dated Sep. 10, 1988.Applicant
- Sear, Alan M., Ph.D., “An Expert System for Determining Medicaid Eligibility”, Journal of Medical Systems, Oct. 1988, vol. 12, Issue 5, pp. 275-283.Applicant
- SearchAmerica, Solutions, “Payment Advisor Suite TM” 2008.Applicant
- Selz, Michael, “Lenders Find Niche In Cosmetic Surgery That Isn't Insured—But Since You Can't Repossess a Nose Job, Risks Aren't Restricted to the Patients,” Wall Street Journal, New York, N.Y., Jan. 1997, p. A.1, 3 pgs.Applicant
- “StarNet Financial, Inc. Acquires Proprietary Rights to Sub-Prime Underwriting System Through Strategic Alliance With TRAkkER Corporation”, PR Newswire, Dallas, TX, Sep. 13, 1999.Applicant
- State of Wisconsin, Division of Health Care Financing, Department of Health and Family Services: 1999-2001 Biennial Report, pp. 17-21.Applicant
- Stein, Benchmarking Default Prediction Models: Pitfalls and Remedies in Model Validation, Moody's KMV, Revised Jun. 13, 2002, Technical Report #020305; New York.Applicant
- Technical Architecture Framework, TIERS, May 8, 2000, pp. 67.Applicant
- Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Texas Performance Review, “Against the Grain: vol. 2,” 1993, as printed Dec. 14, 2012 in 7 pages, from http://www.window.texas.gov/tpr/atg/atg/atgtoc.html.Applicant
- Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Texas Performance Review, “Gaining Ground: vol. 2,” 1994, as printed Dec. 14, 2012 in 4 pages, from http://www.window.texas.gov/tpr/tprgg/v2home.html.Applicant
- Texas Department of Human Services, 1999 Annual Report, 60 Years of Progress, Medial Services 9P137, Publication No. DHS-600-FY99.Applicant
- thatlook.com, Cosmetic Surgery Financing, 3 pgs, as downloaded from http://web.archive.org/web/200001214113900/www.thatlook.com/cosmetic—surger—financing.cfm (1 of 2) [Oct. 15, 2008 4:11:47 PM].Applicant
- “Third Party Assistance Software System (T-PASS)”, Compliance Data Systems, Inc. website, T-PASS Information Page, Oct. 1, 1998, available at http://web.archive.org/web/20010308232545/http://compliancedata.com/tpass.html#Profile.Applicant
- Thomas, David, “Report on Networks and Electronic Communications Newcourt Credit turns to extranet Services / A PC connects to 1,200 users at once.” The Globe and Mail (Canada), Section: Report on Business Special Report, 2 pgs., dated Nov. 12, 1996.Applicant
- TRAkkER Corporation website, trakkercorp.com, TRAkkER Software Description, May 26, 2000, available at http://web.archive.org/web/20000526234204/http://trakkercorp.com/page4.html.Applicant
- TransUnion Intelligence LLC v. Search America, Inc., Videotape Deposition of Jodi Halpine, Oct. 16, 2012, Case No. 0:11-CV-01075-EJS-FLN, pp. 176.Applicant
- TransUnion Intelligence LLC v. Search America, Inc., Jury Trial Demand, Non-Confidential Redacted Version, Case No. 0:11-CV-01075-EJS-FLN, pp. 42.Applicant
- United States of America v. Patricia Lahaie Mahaney, Government's Response to the Standing Discovery Order, Case:0:03-cr-60022-JIC, Entered into docket Jun. 17, 2003, pp. 16.Applicant
- Washington Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES), 1996, pp. 13.Applicant
- Washington State Office of Public Defense, “Criteria and Standards for Determining and Verifying Indigency,” dated Feb. 9, 2001.Applicant
- Webpage printed from http://www.magnum.net/pdfs/RapUpBrochure.pdf as printed Mar. 3, 2008.Applicant
- “Web Site Fuels Elective Surgery Trend; The Complete Resource to Paying for Cosmetic Surgery, Laser Vision Correction and Cosmetic Dentistry,” Business Wire, 2 pgs, dated Apr. 7, 1999.Applicant
- Window on State Government, Susan Combs, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Chapter 8: Health and Human Services, “Improve the Medicaid Eligibility Determination Process,” 9 pgs., as downloaded at http://www.window.state.tx.us/etexas2001/recommend/ch08.Applicant
- Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, BadgerCare Medicaid Application Credit Report Authorization Form, dated Jun. 21, 2001, effective date, Jul. 1, 2001.Applicant
- Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, BadgerCare Medicaid Notification of Eligibility, dated Jul. 25, 2000, effective date, Jul. 1, 2000.Applicant
- Zoot—Decision Engine, www.zootweb.com/decision—engine.html as printed on Mar. 3, 2008.Applicant
- Zoot—Instant Rules GUI, www.zootweb.com/instant—rules—GUI.html as printed Mar. 3, 2008.Applicant
- Zoot—Pre-Built Standard Attributes, www.zootweb.com/credit—attributes.html as printed Mar. 3, 2008.Applicant
- Zoot—Rules Management GUI, www.zootweb.com/business—rules—GUI.html as printed Mar. 3, 2008.Applicant
- Texas Department of Human Services, Revision Notice, Revision 99-1, Effective: Jan. 1, 1999, dated Dec. 11, 1998, pp. 11.Applicant
- Texas Department of Human Services, Revision Notice, Revision 99-3, Effective: Jul. 1, 1999, dated May 28, 1999, pp. 11.Applicant
- Texas Department of Human Services, Revision Notice, Revision 99-6, Effective: Oct. 1, 1999, dated Sep. 3, 1999, pp. 20.Applicant
- Texas Department of Human Services, Revision Notice, Revision 00-3, Effective: Apr. 1, 2000, dated Mar. 3, 2000, pp. 17.Applicant
- Texas Department of Human Services, OIG, 3000—Case Development, Jan. 1999, pp. 3.Applicant
- Texas Department of Human Services, System Specifications, Section 3.2, Current System Architecture and Functional Specifications, NOA Assembled, pp. 21, as last modified Jul. 4, 2000.Applicant
- Texas Department of Human Services, System Specifications, Section 3.3, Current System Architecture and Functional Specifications, GWS Assembled, pp. 752, as last modified Jul. 4, 2000.Applicant
- Texas Department of Human Services, System Specifications, Section 3.3.1, TESS System, pp. 47, as last modified Jul. 4, 2000.Applicant
- Texas Department of Human Services, System Specifications, Section 3.4, Current System Architecture and Functional Specifications, LTCMED Assembled, pp. 372, as last modified Jul. 4, 2000.Applicant
- Texas Department of Human Services, System Specifications, Section 3.5, Current System Architecture and Functional Specifications, SAVERR FS Assembled, pp. 141, as last modified Jul. 4, 2000.Applicant
- Texas Department of Human Services, System Specifications, Section 3.6, SAVERR TANF Assembled, pp. 219, as last modified Jul. 4, 2000.Applicant
- Texas Department of Human Services, System Specifications, Section 3.7, Current System Architecture and Functional Specifications, SAVERR FS, Assembled, pp. 141, as last modified Jul. 5, 2000.Applicant
- Texas Department of Human Services, System Specifications, Section 3.8, Current System Architecture and Functional Specifications, SAVERR INTER, pp. 838, as last modified Jul. 4, 2000.Applicant
- Search America, Inc. v. TransUnion Intelligence LLC, Decision, Case No. CBM2013-00038, Patent No. 7,333,937, Feb. 7, 2014, pp. 24.Applicant
- Search America, Inc. v. TransUnion Intelligence LLC, Decision, Case No. CBM2013-00038, Patent No. 8,185,408, Feb. 7, 2014, pp. 22.Applicant
- Agreement Between Dallas Computer Services, dba DCS Information Systems and the Texas Department of Human Services, to Provide Data Brokering Services, Contract #324Z-8-05203 signed Jun. 15, 1998 and including corresponding documents in 38 pages. [Search America—Exhibit 1010].Applicant
- Curriculum Vitae of Kenneth A. Zeger dated Jan. 8, 2013 in 20 pages.Applicant
- “Parse”, Definition from PC Magazine Encyclopedia, http://www/pcmag.com/encyclopedia—term—0,2542,t=parse&i=48862,00.asp as downloaded Mar. 5, 2012.Applicant
- PC411, Inc. “Reverse Searching Now Available on PC411,” http://web.archive.org/web/19961103061843/http://www.pc411.com/PR—Revrs.html Apr. 9, 1996 in 2 pages.Applicant
- Search America, Inc. v. TransUnion Intelligence LLC, Declaration of Kenneth Zeger in re: Patent No. 7,333,937, Signed Jul. 24, 2013, pp. 9.Applicant
- Search America, Inc. v. TransUnion Intelligence LLC, Declaration of Kenneth Zeger in re: Patent No. 8,185,408, Signed Jul. 29, 2013, pp. 9.Applicant
- Search America, Inc. v. TransUnion Intelligence LLC, Patent Owner Transunion Intelligence, LLC's Preliminary Response, Case No. CBM2013-00037, Patent No. 7,333,937, Nov. 11, 2013, pp. 28.Applicant
- Search America, Inc. v. TransUnion Intelligence LLC, Patent Owner Transunion Intelligence, LLC's Preliminary Response, Case No. CBM2013-00038, Patent No. 8,185,408, Nov. 11, 2013, pp. 26.Applicant
- Search America, Inc. v. TransUnion Intelligence LLC, Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 321 and Section 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Patent No. 8,185,408, Jul. 29, 2013, pp. 84.Applicant
- Search America, Inc. v. TransUnion Intelligence LLC, Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 321 and Section 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Case No. Patent No. 7,333,937, Jul. 29, 2013, pp. 88.Applicant
- Texas Department of Human Services, System Specifications, Section 3.3, Current System Architecture and Functional Specifications, GWS Assembled, pp. 754, as last modified Jul. 4, 2000.Applicant
- Texas Department of Human Services, System Specifications, Section 3.8, Current System Architecture and Functional Specifications, pp. 172.Applicant
- “TIERS Procurement Information,” Texas Department of Human Services, as captured May 26, 2000 http://web.archive.org/web/20000526131749/http://www.dhs.state.tx.us/programs/TIERS/procurement.html in 3 pages.Applicant
- TransUnion Intelligence LLC v. Search America, Inc., Videotape Deposition of James Sunyar, Nov. 12, 2012, Case No. 0:11-CV-01075-EJS-FLN, pp. 128.Applicant
- TransUnion Intelligence LLC v. Search America, Inc., Oral and Videotape Deposition of Bobby Keith Graves, Oct. 26, 2012, Case No. 0:11-CV-01075-PJS-FLN, pp. 181.Applicant
- TransUnion Intelligence LLC v. Search America, Inc., Oral and Videotape Deposition of Kerby Spruiell, May 13, 2013, Case No. 0:11-CV-01075, pp. 257.Applicant
- TransUnion Intelligence LLC v. Search America, Inc., Jury Trial Demand, Case No. 0:11-cv-01075-PJS-FLN, pp. 18.Applicant