I've quickly reviewed your description of the new version, and checked out the program, interface, etc.
First, thanks for all the hard work developing and testing the new version. It's definitely a big improvement (mostly). The improvements in multiple payments, OOP tracking, etc are excellent, as is the new reminder feature. Also, the correction of usability issues (such as having Clear All and Select all in the filtering reports) are very helpful and make the program much easier to use.
That said, I am a bit surprised, after such a long time, at how many things weren't improved that to me at least seemed pretty important. I have previously suggested all of the following through direct feedback, but not here publicly and perhaps others have not shown as much interest in these changes. I'm going to repeat them here so that you can gauge whether others feel similarly.
1) Biggest "issue" is that handling of co-pays seems to have actually taken a step backward. Previously, entering copays was pretty straightforward, and the program reported OOP and deductible expenses both with and without copay included, so you could choose what was applicable. Now, you seem to have removed the ability to exclude copays from OOP and deductible calculations, unless you use the workaround of creating a separate service that doesn't get covered by an insurer. Why make it more difficult? In addition, I cannot find any info in your documentation on what happens if you check the copay box on a payment. If copays are always included in ded and OOP calculations - what is the difference between checking and not checking that box? Does it do anything?
The solution seems obvious - why not do for copays exactly what you did for deductibles? Have an option in insurer details to indicate if copays should be included in a) deductible and b) OOP. THEN it would make sense to have a line item where checking copay alters the algorithm according to Insurer set up.
Also - what happens during conversion to QMEM2 to payments previously entered as copays?
2) The check box for in-network for a provider should be part of Provider details, rather than entered in expense dialog. If a provider is in network, then that would always be the case. Theoretically, I guess they might be in one network and not the other for multiple insurers - I guess Provider setup could allow indicating in/out of network for each insurer. In practice, I doubt there are many cases where you have a provider who is one of your networks and out of another.
3)Interface/usability - program is still very un-windows like - there is no right click context menu in list view, which would be an obvious way to change a status (mark submitted or reimbursed). THere are absolutely no keyboard shortcuts for frequently used things, again, such as marking submitted, pending, FSA status, etc. There is no way to select multiple expenses, and simultaneously mark them as having been submitted to insurer or FSA or change date paid, etc. It is a bit easier than before to go through list and change a status...but changing all selected is common to almost every windows program on the planet.
4) There is no way to do a global edit - for instance, change all instances of a particular service to a different term.
5) There is no way to mark date a claim was sent to an insurer or date was sent to FSA for reimbursement. You can put in notes, but if there was a field, you could quickly find by sort all the items you sent to blue cross on January 20th, for example.
6) The multiple payments feature is great for situations with a big expense that you pay against in installments. But this doesn't cover situations with multiple visits that are invoiced periodically (eg biweekly physical therapy visits with monthly billing) and paid against the statement rather than a visit. RIght now, you would have to split your big payment up among all the visits it covers. Here is how I would see this working: you enter a separate record called a payment record. You indicate the provider. The program pops up a list of all expenses for that provider that are not fully paid, and you check off the ones the payment should apply to. A less elegant way would be for the program to just apply the payment chronologically to open visits until it runs out of payment. Somewhere, it should then show current balance for that PROVIDER - rather than just for a single expense. Billing often includes multiple visits, and that is how you pay.
I guess you could work around this by entering all those visits in one expense record as separate services, but then you could have visits spread over time showing up as a single item - which is not right.
7) FInally (!), it would really help to be able to batch expenses together as going into one claim. Having a field for "date claim sent" gets you part way there. The more elegant way would be to enter a "claim item" and then check off expenses included, from the list of all expenses marked "to submit", and enter the date of that claim in that record.
(So - among other things, I have suggested the creation of two new items besides expenses - "claims" and "payments against invoice".
I don't mean to throw cold water on this - the upgrade is very nice, and a great improvement (except for the copay handling) - but I had hoped there would be a bit more substance. But perhaps others don't share these needs. Reactions from others will be helpful.
All that said, it is a great program, and answers a huge unmet need, and I remain grateful to Intuit and your team for your work and interest in user needs!
Re: Quick Review of QMEM 2- the good and the bad (no ugly) Feb 01, 2006 12:07 pm
First off, this post is probably more appropriate in the "Feedback and Suggestions" forum. It's likely to get lost and forgotten here.
That said, I am a bit surprised, after such a long
time,
"Long time"? There were some very fundamental programming assumptions that were abandoned, which necessarily means some pretty serious rewriting, that occurred between version 1 and 2. A year is a pretty short time for that to happen.
at how many things weren't improved that to me
at least seemed pretty important. I have previously
suggested all of the following through direct
feedback, but not here publicly and perhaps others
have not shown as much interest in these changes. I'm
going to repeat them here so that you can gauge
whether others feel similarly.
1) Biggest "issue" is that handling of co-pays seems
to have actually taken a step backward. Previously,
entering copays was pretty straightforward, and the
program reported OOP and deductible expenses both
with and without copay included, so you could choose
what was applicable. Now, you seem to have removed
the ability to exclude copays from OOP and deductible
calculations, unless you use the workaround of
creating a separate service that doesn't get covered
by an insurer. Why make it more difficult?
I'm sure this wasn't deliberate, but rather a side effect of the vastly different handling of payments, attempting to put ever more information in the same screen real-estate, and the lack of necessary negative feedback by the beta testers... and with this last point, I'm pointing the blame directly on myself. I'm sorry for failing you, and myself, is this regard.
In
addition, I cannot find any info in your
documentation on what happens if you check the copay
box on a payment. If copays are always included in
ded and OOP calculations - what is the difference
between checking and not checking that box? Does it
do anything?
It maintains the information for the next patch/version? ?:|
The solution seems obvious - why not do for copays
exactly what you did for deductibles? Have an
option in insurer details to indicate if copays
should be included in a) deductible and b) OOP. THEN
it would make sense to have a line item where
checking copay alters the algorithm according to
Insurer set up.
Also - what happens during conversion to QMEM2 to
payments previously entered as copays?
Mine remained checked as co-pays.
2) The check box for in-network for a provider should
be part of Provider details, rather than entered in
expense dialog. If a provider is in network, then
that would always be the case.
Not true, typically when hospital work is involved.
Theoretically, I guess
they might be in one network and not the other for
multiple insurers - I guess Provider setup could
allow indicating in/out of network for each insurer.
In practice, I doubt there are many cases where you
have a provider who is one of your networks and out
of another.
I believe they should either allow setting up the Provider/Insurer matrix, or default based on last last expense for that Provider/Insurer combination.
3)Interface/usability - program is still very
un-windows like - there is no right click context
menu in list view, which would be an obvious way to
change a status (mark submitted or reimbursed).
Not to me, but then, I've never been that bright.
THere
are absolutely no keyboard shortcuts for frequently
used things, again, such as marking submitted,
pending, FSA status, etc.
Keyboard navigation is definately a weak point, but I'm willing to put up with it while they get the core functionality in place.
There is no way to select
multiple expenses, and simultaneously mark them as
having been submitted to insurer or FSA or change
date paid, etc.
I was going let you go on this one until you got to "date paid". Hmmm, for which payment? I think you are either seriously underestimating the complexity of the underlying data or unfairly ignoring it. I'm not saying that your suggesting isn't worth while <sorry for the double negative>, but I'd rather wait until version 6 than have it do something wrong.
It is a bit easier than before to go
through list and change a status...but changing all
selected is common to almost every windows program on
the planet.
And completely uncommon to any Windows medical expense tracking program on the planet.
4) There is no way to do a global edit - for
instance, change all instances of a particular
service to a different term.
Select "Lists|Services..." from the menu and click the "Edit" button next to the service you'd like to edit.
5) There is no way to mark date a claim was sent to
an insurer or date was sent to FSA for reimbursement.
You can put in notes, but if there was a field, you
u could quickly find by sort all the items you sent
to blue cross on January 20th, for example.
6) The multiple payments feature is great for
situations with a big expense that you pay against in
installments. But this doesn't cover situations with
multiple visits that are invoiced periodically (eg
biweekly physical therapy visits with monthly
billing) and paid against the statement rather than a
visit. RIght now, you would have to split your big
payment up among all the visits it covers. Here is
how I would see this working: you enter a separate
record called a payment record. You indicate the
provider. The program pops up a list of all expenses
for that provider that are not fully paid, and you
check off the ones the payment should apply to. A
less elegant way would be for the program to just
apply the payment chronologically to open visits
until it runs out of payment. Somewhere, it should
then show current balance for that PROVIDER - rather
than just for a single expense. Billing often
includes multiple visits, and that is how you pay.
I guess you could work around this by entering all
those visits in one expense record as separate
services, but then you could have visits spread over
time showing up as a single item - which is not
right.
Actually, doing the way you want is probably necessary if there is any plan to eventually build in integration with Quicken <which has been requested before>.
I also have payments to a single provider to cover a single invoice for service rendered to different family members on different dates of service.
7) FInally (!), it would really help to be able to
batch expenses together as going into one claim.
Having a field for "date claim sent" gets you part
t way there. The more elegant way would be to enter
a "claim item" and then check off expenses included,
from the list of all expenses marked "to submit", and
enter the date of that claim in that record.
At first, I thought you were talking about the distinction between expenses and services, until I realized that you could be talking about expenses for different insured parties on different service dates. Does your insurance company treat these as one claim? I guess I don't really get this one because all of my providers submit directly to my insurance companies, and all I see are EOBs and bills for co-insurance amounts.
(So - among other things, I have suggested the
creation of two new items besides expenses - "claims"
and "payments against invoice".
I don't mean to throw cold water on this - the
upgrade is very nice, and a great improvement (except
for the copay handling) - but I had hoped there would
be a bit more substance. But perhaps others don't
share these needs. Reactions from others will be
helpful.
You were let down by your expectations, not the program. ;-)
All that said, it is a great program, and answers a
huge unmet need, and I remain grateful to Intuit and
your team for your work and interest in user needs!
Thanks and sorry for this very long post!
Not at all. You have a lot of meat in here. If you made it any shorter, it probably wouldn't provide as much value. I hope you notice that even while I'm giving you a hard time about being impatient, I'm essentially agreeing with you.
Re: Quick Review of QMEM 2- the good and the bad (no ugly) Feb 01, 2006 11:12 pm
Hi Tony - Thanks for your response. I will take your advice and repost on feedback and suggestions.
Just to respond to one important issue - I can understand that if most of your claims are submitted by providers, then several of my suggestions would not seem valuable: selecting multiple expenses for changes to status, adding a claim date, and creating a "claim" record to bind together several expenses.
However, in my family, the majority of our medical expenses are actually out of network with providers that don't submit for us - I submit the claims to blue cross myself. So I regularly batch together a dozen or so statements and bills from multiple providers, and send these on one claim form. That's why those features were important to me.
Re: Quick Review of QMEM 2- the good and the bad (no ugly) Feb 15, 2006 12:15 am
Moved to feedback and suggestions.
________________________________________
Remember that, to help others trying to answer your question, you should visit the "User Preferences" link at the top middle of any forum page, and visit the "My Profile" link, and fll out the form.
This is a User-to-User community forum. If you came for help, please have a look around and see if maybe you have the answer that might be able to help someone else while you wait for your answer. :)
Intuit Employee's using the forum can be identified by the name "Quicken " followed by a red Q. Unless a poster has the above requirements they are not an Intuit employee.
