Proposal · Multi-site clinics
Three legal entities, one price list, no reconciliation night
Billing across several entities and insurers, transmitting into myDATA through a certified provider, with the service and VAT mapping treated as the actual project.
Proposal. We have not built this one. It is written out to the same level of detail as the work we have shipped, because the useful argument is about the design, and that argument costs less before a price exists than after.
- Next.js
- Postgres
- myDATA
- Python
The numbers
- 3
- Things mapped explicitly per site and contract: service code, VAT treatment, issuing entity
- 0
- Documents transmitted before the mapping is reviewed with your accountant
The problem
A clinic group operating through three legal entities has one price list in practice and three in law: the same procedure carries a different VAT treatment, a different insurer contract and a different issuing entity depending on where it was performed.
Transmission to myDATA is the easy half. The hard half is that a mapping error surfaces as a reconciliation problem months later, by which point hundreds of documents share it.
How we would build it
The mapping is the deliverable, not the transmission. Service code, VAT treatment and issuing entity are set out explicitly per site and contract, reviewed with your accountant before a single document is transmitted, and versioned so a change is dated rather than retroactive.
Validation happens before transmission, against the schema and against the group's own rules, so a rejection is caught at the point of issue by the person who can fix it - not by ΑΑΔΕ, and not by the accountant in the following quarter.
Reconciliation runs continuously rather than monthly, and reports mismatches as they appear. A discrepancy found the same day is a correction; the same discrepancy found in March is an audit.
Access to anything patient-linked is logged on read as well as on write, because health data is special-category and the question a regulator asks is who looked at a record, not who could have.
What it would change
What would change is that the mapping becomes a reviewed, dated document instead of knowledge held in one person's head in accounts. No figures appear here, because the ones worth quoting would be measured on your own billing after it runs.
A worked example
Transmission is the easy half. The mapping is the deliverable, and an error in it compounds quietly:
- Same procedure, VAT in clinic vs at home
- differs
- Mapping error found the same day
- a correction
- The same error found in March
- an audit
- Reconciliation
- continuous, not monthly
- Opening a patient record
- logged
What would change is that the mapping becomes a reviewed, dated document instead of knowledge held by one person in accounts. No figures appear because none has been measured yet.
Want us to build this?
A 20-minute call with the two people who would build it. You tell us what you need; we tell you whether it is worth building and roughly what it costs.
The full page: Clinics & diagnostics