When I settled into my new role at inHEALTH as Manager of LAT Compendium Services in May, there were a total of 106 decisions published by the LAT. I figured, how bad could it be? Within two months, the number of published decisions had nearly doubled to 192 – my welcome to the ‘big leagues’!
Instead of easing in, I found myself fully immersed in the process of organizing information from each decision. It soon became apparent to me that we probably have the best seats in the house, a balcony view if you will, of how matters are unfolding at the evolving AABS LAT.
I continued the process of parsing out the information decision by decision and populating inHEALTH’s interactive LAT Compendium. While contributing to the synthesis of the ‘Read More’ summaries, I soon realized how this product’s distinguishing elements lead to quicker navigation that assists the Compendium user to find the decisions that are most relevant to them.
While the LAT Compendium began as a tool to allow inHEALTH to better understand the new tribunal, we recognized the compilation of the information has a broader utility for the industry at large. In my many interactions with numerous stakeholders, they have affirmed the time to value that the LAT Compendium provides, as well as its versatility and functionality.
The LAT Compendium gives a unique vantage point of all decisions and matters as they are unfolding. In turn, reporting on the emerging issues as decisions are being published gives the industry stakeholders the same opportunity to have the best seats in the house. This allows one to step back, see the big picture, and observe trends.
For example, our analysis of the substantive versus procedural issues, shared in our Emerging Issues, shows approximately 48% deal exclusively with substantive issues, while 40% deal exclusively with procedural matters. The number of procedural issues is on the rise, as more recent groups of decisions released have seen over 60% of cases involving procedural issues. This analysis showcases how the LAT is being used.
On the substantive side, the Compendium confirms that, to date, the LAT has dealt with MIG determination in 38 decisions. Roughly 20% of these decisions rule in favor of the Applicant. This point-in-time analysis allows stakeholders to understand how decisions are being made, which will lead to better outcomes and more discriminate use of the LAT.
Turns out that the LAT Compendium is more than I anticipated with the growth in the database, quicker navigation, high-level summaries, and the For/Against analysis, I see how it will continue to help stakeholders drive better outcomes. Although I’m back at law school, I will continue my role as Manager of LAT Compendium Services and welcome your inquiries.