Free Network Build Assessment

Take it free
Blueprint
Back to Case Studies
Exchange / QHPWashington + Oregon

A multi-state Exchange/QHP plan

Two states, one workspace and one playbook

Illustrative scenario based on a common network-build situation — not an actual customer. Blueprint is a new product.

Executive Summary

Consider a plan managing simultaneous Exchange/QHP network builds in Washington and Oregon — two states with separate rules, separate county requirements, and separate submission timelines, run by a single team member in Excel with no cross-state visibility. Blueprint's multi-state workspace lets that team run both builds from a single dashboard and carry the playbook from the Washington build directly into Oregon.

The Challenge

  • 1

    Each state requires separate builds, separate adequacy rules, and separate tracking — with zero visibility across both from a single view.

  • 2

    One team member managing both Washington and Oregon builds in Excel creates single-point-of-failure risk and no audit trail.

  • 3

    Starting the Oregon build from scratch after Washington means losing institutional knowledge and repeating duplicated effort.

The Solution

  • Blueprint's multi-state workspace lets one team manage both builds from a single dashboard, with state-specific adequacy rules applied automatically per county.

  • The Washington build serves as a template for Oregon — providers, outreach sequences, and scoring benchmarks carry over in days, not weeks.

  • Real-time cross-state adequacy scoring means gaps in either state surface immediately, allowing sequential prioritization of the team's time.

Key Results

2 states

One shared workspace

1 playbook

Carried state to state

Real-time

Cross-state adequacy scoring

The repeatability is the big unlock. Same playbook, new state — no starting from zero. Blueprint carries the institutional knowledge from one state's build into the next.

How the workflow helps — illustrative scenario

Build Timeline

How the build unfolded

Week 1

Washington build imported — providers across the service area

Week 2

Oregon build stood up in parallel using Washington as template; state rules auto-applied

Week 5

Washington adequacy reached; team shifts focus to Oregon gap counties

Week 8

Oregon gaps identified and filled via targeted FQHC outreach in rural counties

Week 11

Both states submitted ahead of their adequacy review windows

Ready to see results?

Your build could look like this.

Schedule a 30-minute demo and we'll walk through Blueprint on a real network build for your state and LOB.