Skip to Main Content
Merative Ideas Portal

Shape the future of Merative!

We invite you to shape the future of Merative, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:

Post your ideas

Start by posting ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted and upvote them if they matter to you,

  1. Post an idea

  2. Upvote ideas that matter most to you

  3. Get feedback from the Merative team to refine your idea

Help Merative prioritize your ideas and requests

The Merative team may need your help to refine the ideas so they may ask for more information or feedback. The offering manager team will then decide if they can begin working on your idea. If they can start during the next development cycle, they will put the idea on the priority list. Each team at Merative works on a different schedule, where some ideas can be implemented right away, others may be placed on a different schedule.

Receive notification on the decision

Some ideas can be implemented at Merative, while others may not fit within the development plans for the product. In either case, the team will let you know as soon as possible. In some cases, we may be able to find alternatives for ideas which cannot be implemented in a reasonable time.


Merative External Privacy Statement: https://www.merative.com/privacy

Status Not under consideration
Created by Guest
Created on May 25, 2016

Cross evidence validation and verifications requested on IEG to be reflected on evidence to avoid mismatches

During online IEG intake process for the eligibility application many invalid combination of the data entry is prevented by set of validation or conditional questions. It disallows to create invalid evidences after the application submission that is causing rules execution errors.
The same set of validations and controls are missing when evidences are added via the evidence management in Case Worker Module manually. It opens the possibility of case workers inputting demographics data incorrectly and dependency between evidence data attributes is not forces by the System.
The request is to introduce evidences validations and verifications when entered by case worker similar way as in the online application.

Customer Name Minnesota
  • Attach files
  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    Sep 20, 2021

    Hi Sigitas,

    As part of our efforts to be transparent about our intentions with each enhancement suggestion, the offering team has initiated an annual process to carefully review the list of open enhancements.
    As agreed through the account manager for Minnesota, we are closing this RFE as it was confirmed that it is no longer required.

    We acknowledge the benefit of your suggested enhancement and although we will not take any further action at this time your suggestion will be available in our ideas repository for future consideration.

    We value your feedback and thank you for allowing us the privilege of partnering with you in developing our products.

    Regards,
    Shane McFadden, SPM Offering Management team
    You can find more information on the request process here.
    Note: we are currently in the process of improving your RFE experience and will soon transition to an Ideas Portal provided by our trusted business partner Aha!
    Further communications with additional details will be shared shortly.

  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    Jul 13, 2017

    The issues reported around Case Participant Role in the comment dated Nov 28, 2016 are already logged in an existing defect ticket related to APAR PO05547.

    We accept the discrepancy pointed out in the second comment dated Nov 28, 2016 which highlights the difference in validations in the area of Citizenship, specifically around the DHSID details evidence, in the application vs. when entering evidence manually as a valid enhancement that will be considered as an uncommitted candidate.

    Sherry Byerly, Offering Manager, Social Program Managment

  • Sigitas Jakucionis
    Reply
    |
    May 30, 2017

    Any updates?

  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    Apr 6, 2017

    Any updates? Do you still require more information?

  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    Nov 28, 2016

    In my research for RFE 89019, I looked 3 evidence areas with conditional questions in the IEG:

    · American Indian
    · Citizenship
    · Pregnancy


    and compared the validations/required fields in the IEG vs. creating/editing the associated evidence in the Caseworker Portal. The only discrepancies I found were in the area of Citizenship, specifically around the DHSID details evidence. There are several required fields and validations in the IEG that do not exist when creating/editing the evidence directly.

  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    Nov 28, 2016

    Case Participant Role is not required and/or visible in all evidence dialogs
    Sample findings:

    Application Filer Consent
    Filer Consent
    - CPR can be BLANK upon Save – should have validation to not be blank

    Enrolled Member
    The Enrolled Member details the person enrolled in a plan(s) as part of an enrolment.
    - Must select a CP at screen1, but not req (no validation) on screen 2 to select
    - Can also be edited without validation to select a CP

    Enrolled Plan
    The Enroled Plan contains details of an individual plan that is part of an enrolment, including Carrier and costs associated with the plan.
    - No CPR menu

    Enrolment
    The Enrolment contains details of the enrolled program and the enrollment period for a group consisting of one or more individuals enrolled in one or more enrolment plans.
    - No CPR, but okay(?) since Enrolled member is required also to select member- BUT ‘Enrolled member' fails CPR

    Incarceration
    - if CPR is blank – error “Not Defined”

  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    Nov 16, 2016

    Attachment (Description)

  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    Nov 16, 2016

    Further feedback may be provided but as a start I'm attaching some examples of discrepancies in the area of Citizenship, specifically around the DHSID details evidence. There are several required fields and validations in the IEG that do not exist when creating/editing the evidence directly in the Caseworker Portal.

  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    Sep 8, 2016

    Request to submitter, could we please see more information on which validations you would like to see in order for us to better evaluate this request?

    John Sweeney
    Offering Manager, Social Programs

  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    Aug 31, 2016

    Could we please see more information on which validations the customer would like to see in order for us to better evaluate this request?

    John Sweeney
    Offering Manager, Social Programs

  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    Jul 14, 2016

    Thank you for your enhancement request. We are currently analyzing the requirement and will provide another update when that analysis is complete to confirm whether or not the enhancement will be considered in a future functional release.

    John Sweeney
    Offering Manager - Cúram Social Programs