A recruiter actually reached out to me regarding the position through indeed in the middle of June very brief just basic questions about my experience and different scenarios that I have experience related job field. Then once that was done, I was supposed to be expecting a phone call from the recruiter partner for another interview. The way interview was setup you meet with three people from the hiring people for interview end of July then if accepted offer will start September 11 not sure why it was so far away but that's what I was told. Several weeks went by no phone call reach out to see if I was still being considered as a candidate received a personal email from recruiter that there was over 300 people that applied with over 30 referrals it was very competitive.

I interviewed and found the mock call and documentation exercise fundamentally flawed. It was expected to be completed in 30–40 minutes, which is completely unrealistic for a medication access issue. The scenario (“patient is not receiving medication; during the call she mentions high copayments”) lacked essential context such as systems used, role scope, insurance or enrollment status, escalation pathways, or who the care team was. I have worked as a case manager and program manager for over 10 years, and this came across as an outdated, generic exercise that doesn’t reflect how patient support actually works. In reality, these types of issues require a thorough internal investigation, coordinating with insurance, providers, pharmacies, and delivery services. It often involves confirming the patient’s medications, checking for prior authorizations, investigating copay discrepancies, or understanding potential delays. A realistic approach would be to acknowledge the issue on the initial call, apologize, let the patient know the investigation is underway, and then follow up with updates once the internal work is complete. Expecting candidates to resolve this in a single short interaction overlooks the complexity of the work and patient safety considerations. The ambiguity forced candidates to guess rather than demonstrate safe, compliant problem-solving. The interview seemed to prioritize phone etiquette over real issue resolution, which is concerning. This process does not accurately evaluate experienced candidates and should be reconsidered