You Cannot Automate Your Way Out of a Broken Process
Technology is essential to Revenue Cycle Management's future, but people and processes remain the true drivers of success.
Technology is changing Revenue Cycle Management at an incredible pace. Automation, artificial intelligence, advanced analytics, and new platforms are creating opportunities to improve processes, strengthen financial performance, reduce unnecessary manual work, and give teams better tools to do their jobs. I am excited about that future, but I also believe there is something we need to be careful not to lose in our excitement about innovation: you cannot automate your way out of a broken process. Technology can make a good process faster, make information more accessible, identify patterns, and eliminate repetitive tasks so people can focus their attention where their knowledge and experience matter most. What it cannot do is fix unclear ownership, poor communication, lack of accountability, or a team that does not understand why a process exists. Automating a broken process may simply allow us to make the same mistakes faster.
Having worked on both the clinical and administrative sides of dentistry has shaped how I view Revenue Cycle Management. RCM is much more than a billing department; it is an ecosystem. The revenue cycle begins long before a claim is submitted. Scheduling, patient demographics, insurance verification, treatment planning, clinical documentation, coding, collections, claim submission, payment posting, accounts receivable, credentialing, payer relationships, and the patient experience are all connected. When something breaks down in one area, the impact eventually appears somewhere else. When a claim is denied, the easiest response is often to ask what billing did wrong, but I believe the better question is, “Where did the process break down?” Sometimes the answer is billing, but sometimes the issue began days or weeks earlier. Effective RCM requires us to look beyond departmental boundaries and understand the entire journey.
I take the same approach when evaluating new technology. My first question is not simply what it can automate; I want to understand the problem we are trying to solve. If we cannot clearly define the problem, understand the current workflow, establish ownership, and determine what success looks like, adding another piece of technology may only add another layer of complexity. Sometimes the right solution is automation, but sometimes it is education, clearer accountability, a better process, or simply eliminating a step that no longer serves a purpose. Innovation is not just about adopting the newest technology. It is about being willing to examine how we work and recognize what actually needs to change.
There is understandable concern about what artificial intelligence and automation will mean for the workforce, but I see tremendous opportunity. I believe we should be asking how we can use technology to remove unnecessary work from talented people rather than how we can use it to replace them. Our teams should not spend hours completing repetitive tasks that technology can perform accurately and efficiently. We should be developing people who can analyze information, solve problems, communicate effectively, understand payer behavior, recognize trends, and make thoughtful decisions. That means leadership has to evolve alongside technology as well. If technology removes some of the transactional work, we have a responsibility to prepare our people for what comes next. We cannot invest heavily in artificial intelligence while forgetting to invest in human intelligence.
Throughout my career, I have learned that some operational problems that initially appear to be process problems are actually leadership problems. When something repeatedly breaks down, we have to ask whether expectations and ownership are clear, whether people have been properly trained, whether we are measuring the right things, and whether leaders are willing to address issues when expectations are not being met. Accountability matters deeply to me, but I do not believe accountability and compassion are opposites. We can hold high expectations while supporting people, address mistakes without diminishing the person who made them, and coach someone while still requiring improvement. I believe in leading with heart and delivering with excellence, and that philosophy applies just as much to Revenue Cycle Management as it does to leadership.
The future of RCM will undoubtedly include more automation, artificial intelligence, better analytics, and technology we have not yet imagined. We should embrace those advancements without losing the critical thinking, accountability, leadership, compassion, and human judgment that make them effective. The organizations that thrive will not simply be the ones with the most technology; they will be the ones that successfully bring people, processes, technology, data, financial performance, and the patient experience together. I am excited about where our industry is going, but I believe our greatest innovations will come from more than asking what technology can do for us. We first have to be willing to ask whether we are doing the right things, in the right way, for the right reasons. The future of RCM may be powered by technology, but it will still be led by people.
