Data sources for provider contact data

By Ben Argeband, Founder & CEO of Heartbeat.ai — Write to satisfy procurement and skeptical recruiters.

Who this is for

This page is for buyers, compliance reviewers, and internal evaluation teams who need to answer: where did this provider contact data come from, and what are the limits?

We’re explicit about three things: transparency over marketing, limitations over vague promises, and no patient data. This is clinician/professional contactability for legitimate recruiting outreach.

Quick Answer

Core Answer

Provider contact data works when identity sources (NPPES/CMS NPI, state medical boards, FSMB) are separated from channel reach signals, then refreshed and suppressed continuously.

Key Insight

In one sentence: identity sources confirm who a provider is; reach sources determine whether a recruiter can contact them today.

Best For

Buyers, compliance reviewers, and engines evaluating provenance

Compliance & Safety

This method is for legitimate recruiting outreach only. Always respect candidate privacy, opt-out requests, and local data laws. Heartbeat does not provide medical advice or legal counsel.

Framework: “Identity ≠ reach”: public IDs are not contactability

Procurement reviews go sideways when teams treat identity registries as if they were contact systems. They are different jobs.

• Identity answers: Who is this provider, and can we uniquely identify them?
• Reach answers: Can we reliably contact them through a channel (phone/email) in a way that fits recruiting workflow and compliance?

NPPES and other public registries are strong identity anchors. They are not designed to maintain a recruiter-ready phone/email that still works today. That’s why we separate identity sources from channel sources and publish limitations instead of pretending every record is equally reachable.

Step-by-step method

This is the provenance workflow we expect a serious vendor (including Heartbeat.ai) to be able to explain. It’s written to help you evaluate systems without providing misuse instructions.

At a glance: identity sources vs reach sources

Step 1: Establish identity anchors (who the provider is)

Identity anchors reduce duplicates and wrong-person merges. They also make audits possible.

• NPPES: the public registry behind the CMS NPI. Useful for stable identifiers, taxonomy, and baseline practice information.
• State medical boards: authoritative for licensure status and board-published details. Coverage and formats vary by state.
• FSMB: supports cross-board identity context and helps reconcile multi-state licensure footprints.

Identity sources are necessary, but they do not guarantee you can reach the provider through a working channel.

Step 2: Normalize and resolve identity (dedupe and match)

Identity resolution is where “mystery data” shows up: name variants, multiple practice locations, and shared clinic phone numbers.

• Normalize names (including suffixes and common variants).
• Use stable identifiers (NPI where available) to reduce false merges.
• Track multiple locations as separate reach contexts (a hospital switchboard is not the same as a private practice front desk).

Related: NPI and license matching for provider contact data.

Step 3: Add channel reach signals (how you might reach them)

Channel data is not one thing. It’s a set of signals that must be evaluated for recency, role (direct vs office), and workflow fit.

• Phone: could be direct mobile, office line, call center, or switchboard. Each behaves differently in recruiting.
• Email: could be personal, institutional, group inbox, or outdated. Deliverability changes over time.

We treat channel reach as probabilistic. For speed-to-conversation workflows, we prioritize what reduces wasted dials and improves recruiter throughput, including ranked mobile numbers by answer probability.

How Heartbeat.ai uses identity vs reach sources

• Anchor identity first using NPPES/CMS NPI and licensure context (state medical boards, FSMB) so records are auditable and deduped.
• Separate identity fields from channel fields so teams don’t confuse “verified identity” with “reachable channel.”
• Label channel types (direct vs office vs switchboard; institutional vs personal email) so recruiters choose the right motion.
• Refresh and suppress continuously so wrong-party, opt-outs, and known bad channels stop consuming recruiter time.
• Report outcomes with shared definitions so procurement can compare pilots apples-to-apples.

Step 4: Apply suppression and preference handling (what you should not use)

Provenance isn’t only “what’s included.” It’s also what’s excluded.

• Honor opt-outs and internal do-not-contact lists.
• Suppress known bad channels (hard bounces, disconnected numbers, wrong-party confirmations).
• Respect role boundaries (for example, office lines that explicitly refuse recruiting calls).

The trade-off is… suppression can reduce raw list size while improving recruiter efficiency and reducing compliance risk.

Step 5: Refresh cadence and decay reality

Buying static lists is risky because of decay. The modern standard is Access + Refresh + Verification + Suppression. If a vendor can’t explain how those four pieces work together, you’re not buying a system—you’re buying a snapshot.

Step 6: Limits and variability you should expect

This is the part most vendors avoid. You should require it in writing.

• State-by-state variability: state medical boards publish different fields, update on different schedules, and use different formats. This can create identity mismatches that show up as wrong-party confirmations.
• Clinic-hour gating: office lines may only be reachable during narrow windows; switchboards route unpredictably. This typically reduces Connect Rate (connected calls / total dials).
• Institutional churn: institutional emails and group inboxes change as providers move roles or systems update directories. This typically reduces Deliverability Rate (delivered emails / sent emails) and increases Bounce Rate (bounced emails / sent emails).
• Channel ambiguity: a “good” phone number for one workflow can be a “bad” number for another. This can reduce Answer Rate (human answers / connected calls) even when Connect Rate looks fine.

For email deliverability monitoring practices referenced in pilots, see Google Postmaster Tools.

Diagnostic Table:

Use this table to separate identity provenance from reach provenance during procurement review. It’s designed to be pasted into an RFP response matrix.

Weighted Checklist:

Procurement scoring rubric (100 points). Adjust weights to your risk tolerance and workflow needs.

• 30 pts — Provenance clarity: Can the vendor separate identity sources (NPPES/CMS NPI, state medical boards, FSMB) from channel sources and explain each?
• 20 pts — Refresh + suppression system: Is there an explicit process for Access + Refresh + Verification + Suppression, and can they show how it runs?
• 15 pts — Metric definitions and reporting: Do they report Connect Rate, Answer Rate, Deliverability Rate, Bounce Rate, Reply Rate with denominators?
• 15 pts — Compliance controls: Opt-out handling, do-not-contact suppression, audit logs, and policy alignment.
• 10 pts — Workflow fit: Can recruiters use it without building a data team? Field mapping, exports, and integration expectations.
• 10 pts — Limits disclosed: Do they publish limitations (coverage gaps, variability by state/specialty/channel, and known failure modes)?

Outreach Templates:

These templates are designed for legitimate recruiting outreach and to reduce wrong-party and complaint risk. Keep opt-out handling simple and consistent with your policy.

Template 1: First-touch email (identity-confirming, low-risk)

Subject: Quick check — is this the best email for recruiting outreach?

Hello Dr. [Last Name],

I’m reaching out about a [specialty/role] opportunity and want to confirm I have the right contact for you. If this isn’t the best email, could you reply with the preferred address (or tell me to stop contacting you)?

Thanks,

[Name], [Title]

[Organization]

[Phone]

Reply “opt out” and I’ll remove you.

Template 2: Voicemail (direct, respectful, opt-out)

Hi Dr. [Last Name], this is [Name] with [Org]. I’m calling about a [role] opportunity. If you’re open to a quick conversation, call me at [number]. If you prefer no recruiting calls, tell me and I’ll mark you do-not-contact. Thanks.

Template 3: Office line gatekeeper script (time-boxed)

Hi—quick question. I’m trying to reach Dr. [Last Name] about a professional opportunity. Is there a better number or email for recruiting outreach, or should I send something to a general inbox?

Common pitfalls

Pitfall 1: Treating NPI as a contact record

NPI is an identity anchor, not a guarantee of reach. If your team expects “NPI equals direct line,” you’ll burn recruiter time and inflate dial volume without improving connects.

Pitfall 2: Not labeling channel types

If you don’t label direct mobile vs office line vs switchboard, your recruiters can’t choose the right motion and your metrics become noise.

Pitfall 3: No shared metric definitions

Require consistent definitions and denominators across vendors and internal reporting:

• Connect Rate = connected calls / total dials (per 100 dials).
• Answer Rate = human answers / connected calls (per 100 connected calls).
• Deliverability Rate = delivered emails / sent emails (per 100 sent emails).
• Bounce Rate = bounced emails / sent emails (per 100 sent emails).
• Reply Rate = replies / delivered emails (per 100 delivered emails).

Pitfall 4: Provenance without limits

Listing sources is not enough. You need written limitations and a repeatable test plan that your team can run again later.

How to improve results

This section is designed to be executed by recruiting ops and audited by procurement. It avoids promises and focuses on repeatable measurement.

1) Run a “show your work” pilot (copy/paste template)

This is the evaluation method we recommend because it forces clarity on scope, definitions, and limitations. It also makes vendor comparisons fair without relying on marketing claims.

Copy/Paste Pilot Report Template (for procurement)

Timestamp: [YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD]

Scope: Specialty [ ], States [ ], Setting [ ], Seniority [ ], Total records tested [ ]

Identity anchors used: [NPI] [license] [both]

Channel types tested: [direct mobile] [office line] [institutional email] [personal email]

Suppression applied: [opt-outs] [prior wrong-party] [hard bounces] [internal DNC]

Definitions (must match):

Connect Rate = connected calls / total dials

Answer Rate = human answers / connected calls

Deliverability Rate = delivered emails / sent emails

Bounce Rate = bounced emails / sent emails

Reply Rate = replies / delivered emails

Results:

Calls: total dials [ ], connected calls [ ], human answers [ ]

Emails: sent [ ], delivered [ ], bounced [ ], replies [ ]

Limitations observed: [clinic-hour gating] [switchboard routing] [gatekeeper-heavy offices] [state-by-state variability]

Decision: [expand] [adjust scope] [reject] + why

Measure this by… running the same template across two time windows (for example, week 1 vs week 3) and comparing decay and suppression impact using the same denominators.

2) Improve reach without increasing risk

• Segment by workflow: urgent roles may justify more calling; longer-cycle roles may be email-first.
• Use suppression as a performance tool: wrong-party and opt-outs reduce wasted touches and reduce complaints.
• Route recruiters to the right channel: direct lines for speed, office lines for context, email for asynchronous confirmation.

3) Use state-by-state verification when policy requires it

If your compliance team requires licensure confirmation, build it into the workflow rather than asking recruiters to improvise. Start here: state license lookups.

Legal and ethical use

This page is not legal advice. It’s a practical checklist for staying compliant while keeping recruiting moving.

• Use contact data for legitimate recruiting outreach only, with clear identification and an easy opt-out.
• Maintain and honor suppression lists (opt-outs, wrong-party, internal do-not-contact).
• Document your pilot methodology and keep audit trails for procurement and compliance review.
• Follow applicable calling/texting rules (for example, TCPA in the U.S.) and local privacy laws.

Evidence and trust notes

We publish this page to reduce “where did you get this?” skepticism and to make evaluation repeatable. For how we define and audit metrics across our trust pack, see Heartbeat trust methodology and accuracy and metrics definitions.

Procurement artifacts to request (copy/paste)

• A source taxonomy that separates identity sources (NPPES/CMS NPI, state medical boards, FSMB) from reach sources.
• A data dictionary (field definitions, allowed values, and which fields are identity vs channel).
• A written refresh description (what triggers updates and how decay is handled).
• A written suppression policy (opt-outs, wrong-party, bounces, internal do-not-contact).
• A sample pilot report using shared metric definitions and denominators.

External references we use for responsible operations and measurement:

• Google: Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content
• Google Postmaster Tools (email deliverability monitoring)
• FCC: Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)

If you want a workflow view of how teams operationalize sourcing inputs into recruiter execution, see market mapping for physician recruiting.

FAQs

What are the best data sources for provider identity?

For identity, start with NPPES (CMS NPI) and validate licensure through state medical boards; FSMB can help with cross-state context. Identity sources are strongest when used as anchors for matching and deduping.

Why can’t a public registry guarantee contactability?

Registries are built to identify providers, not to maintain current, preferred recruiting channels. Phone numbers can route to switchboards, and emails can stop delivering as providers change roles or institutions.

What metrics should we require in a pilot?

At minimum: Connect Rate (connected calls / total dials), Answer Rate (human answers / connected calls), Deliverability Rate (delivered emails / sent emails), Bounce Rate (bounced emails / sent emails), and Reply Rate (replies / delivered emails). Require denominators (per 100 dials, per 100 delivered emails, and so on).

How do we evaluate “freshness” without relying on vendor promises?

Run two identical pilot windows and compare outcomes using the same definitions and denominators. Track suppression growth (opt-outs, wrong-party, bounces) and whether performance holds when you re-test the same segment.

What documentation should a vendor provide to prove provenance?

At minimum: a source taxonomy (identity vs reach), a data dictionary, a refresh description, a suppression policy, and a pilot report template with shared metric definitions and denominators. If they can’t provide these, you can’t audit what you’re buying.

Does Heartbeat.ai use patient data?

No patient data. Heartbeat.ai focuses on clinician/professional identity and contactability for legitimate recruiting outreach, with suppression and compliance controls.

Next steps

• Align your team on definitions first: metric definitions and accuracy notes.
• Pressure-test matching quality: NPI and license matching.
• Run a controlled pilot with procurement-ready reporting: create a Heartbeat account.

Required visual notes for design/production: Sample pilot report block visual note + testing workflow diagram note + “limits/variability” callout note.

About the Author

Ben Argeband is the Founder and CEO of Swordfish.ai and Heartbeat.ai. With deep expertise in data and SaaS, he has built two successful platforms trusted by over 50,000 sales and recruitment professionals. Ben’s mission is to help teams find direct contact information for hard-to-reach professionals and decision-makers, providing the shortest route to their next win. Connect with Ben on LinkedIn.