Issue link: https://beckershealthcare.uberflip.com/i/1544994
62 RCM LEADER ADVERTISINGINDEX Note: Ad page number(s) given in parentheses American Heart Association. qualitynow@heart.org / heart.org (pg. 3) AMN Healthcare. amnhealthcare.com / (800) 685-2272 (pg. 7) Andor Health. andorhealth.com (pg. 57) athenahealth. athenahealth.com (pgs. 43-46) Clearway Health. clearwayhealth.com (pg. 53) Intuitive. intuitive.com (pg. 2) LeanTaaS. leantaas.com (pg. 64) Pfizer. pfizerhospitalus.com/supply-sustainability / readytouse.pfizerpro.com (pgs. 15, 21) Premier Inc. premierinc.com (pg. 63) SCP Health. scphealth.com (pgs. 26-29) Stryker. stryker.com (pg. 52) TIAA Institute. tiaa.org/healthcare (pgs. 34-38) The big mistake health systems make in revenue cycle tech contracts By Laura Dyrda T here is no shortage of healthcare technology vendors promising to transform revenue cycle operations. ere is, however, a persistent gap between what gets sold and what gets measured, and many health system leaders trace that gap to the same root cause: metrics defined too late, or not at all. Marji Karlin, chief revenue officer for NYC Health + Hospitals, said developing specific upfront metric definition is the single most critical aspect of technology evaluation. "ere are so many factors that go into demonstrating ROI for healthcare technology," she said. "e calculation is fairly nuanced to the type of technology we're considering. ere are some obvious metrics, such as direct cost savings, revenue li or risk-based returns. For some technology we'd consider clinical outcome metrics, and for others we'd look at operational efficiencies, clinician experience, or patient experience." It is important to establish metrics early. Without predefined success criteria, technology evaluations default to whatever data is most readily available aer implementation, which may have little relationship to the original business case. Namrata Saha, program manager at Chicago-based Northwestern Medicine, said the challenge is a quantitative and narrative problem. Getting ROI right requires assembling a portfolio of metrics, not a single number. "It's important to compile a number of quantitative and qualitative metrics along with long term trends and predictions to determine the real impact of the technology," she said. "It's a combination of numbers and storytelling to show the true value." Developing a complete cost picture requires looking well beyond licensing fees to include implementation, change management and opportunity costs. Leaders also need to understand how diverting time and resources to the new project will stress the system. On the return side, she points to a broad set of potential measures: • Time savings • Ongoing support costs • Dollars saved • More accurate documentation • Reduced readmission rates • Better user experience • Time diverted to higher-value work • Novel analytical insights For Sheila Augustine, director of revenue cycle at Omaha-based Nebraska Medicine, the challenge is compounded by the nature of healthcare itself. Many of the most significant returns from technology are indirect, long-term, or difficult to attach a dollar figure to. "Defining return on investment for technology in healthcare can be particularly challenging because the value extends far beyond direct financial gains," she said. "While traditional ROI focuses on measurable cost savings or revenue increases, many healthcare technologies deliver benefits that are indirect, long term or difficult to quantify, such as improved patient outcomes, enhanced safety, reduced clinician burnout and better care coordination. ese complexities make it difficult to isolate the technology's true contribution and assign it a clear monetary value, requiring a broader, more holistic approach to evaluating ROI that includes both quantitative and qualitative outcomes." n