Refactor Cosmetology codebase to remove privilege records from database storage

[landonshumway-ia]

The Cosmetology app uses a multi-state license model, but the codebase we are working from uses the concepts of privileges which were digital records stored in the database. We have determined to remove this record type and it's associated schemas from the Cosmetology codebase as they will not be needed.

This ticket involves designing the new provider schema with the concept of privilege records removed from the table while still generating the needed fields for the frontend to function. We will need to determine which fields will need to be generated at runtime, and which privilege fields will no longer be relevant under this new model. Once the schema is in place, we will remove all references to the irrelevant privilege schemas/fields.

Notes

Questions

Assumptions

Estimate

Tasks

• TODO
• Automated tests
• API Docs
• Postman collection
• PR opened with labels / reviewers / assignee / linked-issue

Implementation Notes

[landonshumway-ia]

Here are some notes from my initial investigation of the codebase:

Fields to remove from API response:

From provider object:

  npi
  privilegeJurisdictions (may generate with list of live Cosmetology states if needed)

From privilege object:

activeSince
dateOfIssuance
dateOfRenewal
dateOfExpiration (maybe keep since it is linked to license?)
dateOfUpdate
privilegeId
administratorSetStatus

    possibly status?

Note that none of the privilege data will be stored in the DB, any needed fields will be generated at request time based on the values from the license and and adverse actions or investigations set for that state.

From License object:

npi

The provider detail API could return something like this:

{
  "type": "provider",
  "providerId": "89a6377e-c3a5-40e5-bca5-317ec854c570",
  "ssnLastFour": "1234",
  "givenName": "Björk",
  "middleName": "Gunnar",
  "familyName": "Guðmundsdóttir",
  "jurisdictionUploadedLicenseStatus": "active",
  "jurisdictionUploadedCompactEligibility": "eligible",
  "licenseStatus": "active",
  "compactEligibility": "eligible",
  "compact": "cosm",
  "licenseJurisdiction": "oh",
  "dateOfBirth": "1985-06-06",
  "dateOfUpdate": "2024-07-08T23:59:59+00:00",
  "dateOfExpiration": "2025-04-04",
  "birthMonthDay": "06-06",
  "licenses": [
    {
      "type": "license",
      "providerId": "89a6377e-c3a5-40e5-bca5-317ec854c570",
      "compact": "cosm",
      "jurisdiction": "oh",
      "ssnLastFour": "1234",
      "licenseNumber": "A0608337260",
      "licenseType": "cosmetologist",
      "jurisdictionUploadedLicenseStatus": "active",
      "jurisdictionUploadedCompactEligibility": "eligible",
      "licenseStatus": "active",
      "licenseStatusName": "EXAMPLE_STATUS",
      "compactEligibility": "eligible",
      "givenName": "Björk",
      "middleName": "Gunnar",
      "familyName": "Guðmundsdóttir",
      "dateOfIssuance": "2010-06-06",
      "dateOfRenewal": "2020-04-04",
      "dateOfExpiration": "2025-04-04",
      "dateOfBirth": "1985-06-06",
      "dateOfUpdate": "2024-06-06T12:59:59+00:00",
      "homeAddressStreet1": "123 A St.",
      "homeAddressStreet2": "Apt 321",
      "homeAddressCity": "Columbus",
      "homeAddressState": "oh",
      "homeAddressPostalCode": "43004",
      "emailAddress": "björk@example.com",
      "phoneNumber": "+13213214321",
      "adverseActions": [],
      "investigations": []
    }
  ],
  "privileges": [
    {
      "type": "privilege",
      "providerId": "89a6377e-c3a5-40e5-bca5-317ec854c570",
      "compact": "cosm",
      "jurisdiction": "ne",
      "licenseType": "cosmetologist",
      "licenseJurisdiction": "oh",
      "status": "active", // maybe remove this if not relied on by frontend?
      "adverseActions": [],
      "investigations": []
    }
  ]
}

Questions

• If user has multiple license types, do we automatically display privilege cards in every state for both?
• If a license is ineligible, do we display a list of inactive privilege cards? Or none at all?

[landonshumway-ia]

This is blocked until Cosmetology stakeholders confirm that they will also be using the term 'privileges' or using some other name.

[landonshumway-ia]

We will stick with the term 'privileges'. A couple more questions to consider (putting the questions from above here for convenience):

• If a practitioner has different license types (ie 'cosmetologist' and 'esthetician') in different states, do we automatically display privilege cards in every state that is live in the CompactConnect system for both licenses?
  • ANSWER: All privileges are active regardless of home state, we cannot make the decision of what is active.
• If a practitioner has the same license type (ie 'cosmetologist) in different states, how do we determine which state to associate the privileges with for that license type?
  • ANSWER: Most recent issuance becomes the state that we associate the privileges with
• If a license is ineligible, do we display a list of inactive privilege cards? Or none at all?
  • ANSWER: We will not return any privileges if home state is ineligible
• If home state license is encumbered, do we send a privilege encumbrance notification to all of the other states as we do with JCC? - ANSWER: Still send notifications to every state not already encumbered
• Could we display the home state license issuance/renewal/expiration date on each privilege card? Or should we remove those fields from privilege records? - ANSWER: Only expiration date can match home state, remove everything else
• (For frontend) do we reference the privilege dateOfUpdate field anywhere? Can it be removed without issues?
• ANSWER: dateOfUpdate can be removed from privilege objects

Assumptions (both verified):

• If a practitioner has different license types (ie 'cosmetologist' and 'esthetician') in the same state, we automatically display privilege cards in every state that is live in the CompactConnect system for both license types (if the licenses are eligible).
• A privilege in a state is considered active if all of the following are true:
  • the associated home state license is marked active and eligible by the state
  • the associated home state license is not expired
  • the associated home state license is not encumbered
  • the privilege record itself is not encumbered

[landonshumway-ia]

@isabeleliassen if you are able to review these questions ☝️ and either answer them here or we can discuss during standup that would be helpful. Thanks

[landonshumway-ia]

Follow up question that came up during implementation:

• Should 'dateOfRenewal' take higher precedent than the 'dateOfIssuance'? For example, if license A was issued after license B, but license B was renewed more recently than license A, should license B be selected as the 'home state license'? Or will it always strictly be tied to whichever license has the most recent dateOfIssuance?

ANSWER: date of renewal will take higher precedent. If date of renewal is not present, date of issuance will be referenced