Health Systems Don’t Have an AI Problem. They Have a Time-to-Value Problem.

Health systems are not resistant to innovation. They are resistant to waiting.

Most revenue cycle leaders have lived through at least one technology initiative that looked promising on paper and disappointing in practice. The demos were compelling. The roadmap made sense. The long-term ROI projections were hard to argue with. And yet, months later, day-to-day operations looked largely the same, except teams were more tired, leaders were more cautious, and the appetite for the next initiative had quietly diminished.

This pattern has created a form of institutional skepticism that has little to do with AI itself. Health systems don’t lack vision. They lack time.

In an environment where payer work never stops, staffing is fragile, and operational pressure is constant, the real constraint on adoption is not sophistication. It’s time to value.

(Note: this is part two of a series on RCM in large health systems. For part one, read: Why Health System RCM Breaks at Scale.)

Why long pilots erode confidence and momentum

Extended pilots are often positioned as a responsible way to manage risk. In reality, they frequently do the opposite.

From an operational perspective, pilots ask teams to operate in two modes at once. Frontline staff are expected to maintain baseline performance while testing new workflows, documenting feedback, and adapting to partially implemented tools. Leaders are asked to maintain enthusiasm without tangible results to point to. Over time, attention fragments.

The longer a pilot runs without visible impact, the harder it becomes to sustain belief. What begins as cautious optimism turns into quiet disengagement. Even when a solution eventually performs as intended, the organization’s emotional energy has already been spent.

For system-level RCM leaders, this erosion is costly. Each stalled initiative makes the next one harder to justify. This is not because the ideas are bad, but because teams have learned to brace for delayed payoff.

The operational cost of waiting for integration

Deep integration is often treated as a prerequisite for value. In theory, that makes sense. In practice, it introduces a delay that many health systems can’t afford.

RCM leaders running new pilots on top of existing systems want to have their cake and eat it too, but revenue cycle operations don’t pause while IT roadmaps advance. Eligibility checks still need to happen. Prior authorizations still need follow-up. Claims still age. Every week spent waiting for integration is a week of continued manual effort.

The dependency on enterprise IT timelines also shifts control away from operators. Even when RCM leaders are aligned on priorities, progress can be gated by competing system-wide initiatives. Relief becomes conditional, rather than immediate.

This dynamic fuels frustration—not with technology, but with the gap between strategic intent and operational reality. Teams aren’t asking for perfection. They’re asking for something that helps now.

Change management as the hidden blocker

When initiatives stall, the technology itself is rarely the sole issue. More often, the constraint is change management.

Training takes time. Workflow redesign takes time. Adoption takes time. Each additional requirement placed on frontline teams competes with existing work that cannot be deferred.

At scale, even small changes ripple outward. A new process introduced at the system level must be understood, accepted, and consistently applied across facilities with different cultures and pressures. The larger the organization, the more inertia exists, not because teams are unwilling, but because coordination is genuinely hard.

This is why tools that “work” in controlled pilots often struggle in production. They assume bandwidth that doesn’t exist and patience that has already been exhausted.

Why partial automation today can outperform full automation later

There is a quiet but important shift happening in how experienced RCM leaders evaluate value.

Rather than asking what a solution will do once fully implemented, they are asking what it will relieve immediately. Incremental improvements that remove a meaningful burden today often deliver more practical value than comprehensive platforms that promise transformation months or quarters down the line.

Partial automation is not a compromise—it is a strategy. Removing even a narrow slice of repetitive, high-volume work can free up human capacity, stabilize teams, and create space for further improvement.

In health systems, momentum matters. Visible relief builds trust. Trust creates room for ambition.

What fast time-to-value actually looks like in practice

Fast time-to-value is not about shortcuts. It’s about alignment with how health systems actually operate.

In practice, it tends to share a few characteristics. Deployment happens in weeks, not quarters. Workflow disruption is minimal. Frontline teams don’t need to fundamentally rethink how they work to see benefits. Impact is visible quickly. It often manifests in reduced backlog, reclaimed hours, or fewer escalations.

Critically, these gains are felt where the work happens, not just in dashboards. When teams experience relief firsthand, adoption follows naturally. Leaders don’t have to sell the change. The results speak for themselves.

This is the opposite of moonshot thinking. It is pragmatic, operational, and grounded in respect for constrained environments.

Reframing how health systems evaluate technology

Health systems are not wrong to be cautious. They are responding rationally to years of initiatives that asked for patience without delivering relief.

Reframing evaluation around time-to-value does not mean abandoning long-term strategy. It means sequencing it. Immediate impact builds credibility. Credibility enables deeper transformation later.

Organizations that recognize this dynamic are increasingly prioritizing solutions that meet them where they are: tools designed to slot into existing operations, absorb specific burdens, and deliver measurable relief quickly.

Some vendors, including SuperDial, have begun to position themselves explicitly around this reality, focusing on reducing the most time-intensive payer interactions without requiring wholesale system change. But the broader lesson extends beyond any single approach.

In health systems, the best technology is not the most advanced on paper. It is the one that respects urgency, earns trust quickly, and gives teams breathing room before asking them to change everything.

‍