Setting the expectation that costs will go down because of a new analytics dashboard and a squad of care managers moves the emphasis from “let’s equip ourselves with the right technology and personnel to provide the best possible care” to “we’re investing in efficiency.” It’s a subtle shift that equates doing more, investing more, coordinating more, with spending less.
Does Care Coordination Really Save Money? Does That Really Matter?
Naveen Rao
224

Thanks Naveen for a well-written article — I agree that patient care really should be the emphasis rather than cost saving, but there’s something to be said for not just care coordination, but the right sort of care coordination. Part of why I think we haven’t seen smashing successes in the space is because care coordinators and case managers often aren’t being used at the top of their scope as they could be if they were empowered by the right technology and really had access to all of the right resources to effectively coordinate care. There’s a disconnect in my opinion between the analytics dashboards (i.e. the technology) and the folks that use them that creates this friction that sometimes leads to wasted costs in an effort that is meant to cut costs.

One of the reasons I joined PatientPing* is because I believe that there does exist a a future and a means to provide patients with the best possible care while simultaneously empowering providers to be more efficient + cost-effective. I agree that there are more variables than the naive equation of “care coordination” == “cost savings” but my hope is that there’s a future where better care coordination (empowered by a connected network of providers through technology**) exists.

*Worth being explicit that my views expressed here are my own and not PatientPing’s
** I’m particularly conscious that in healthcare, technology is never “the solution” in healthcare, and that healthtech companies need to be thoughtfully aware and conscious to not overlook or ignore these gaps that technology alone fundamentally can’t bridge.