Removing Work vs. Rewiring Work: A Comparison of Health Systems Software Tools

If you’ve been in health system revenue cycle long enough, you can usually tell within ten minutes what a new software tool is going to ask of you.

Some tools want to change how you work. Others want to take work off your plate. That difference matters more than most vendor conversations acknowledge.

Health systems don’t just evaluate software based on features or long-term ROI. They evaluate it based on what kind of burden it introduces on day one. Does it require workflow redesign? Cross-functional retraining? IT sequencing? Or does it quietly reduce the volume your teams are already absorbing?

At scale, that distinction becomes one of the most important buying criteria you’ll never see written into an RFP.

Two categories of tools you’ve definitely seen

Most health system software in revenue cycle management falls into one of two broad categories.

The first category tries to rewire work. These platforms aim to optimize, standardize, or transform workflows. They often promise deep visibility, end-to-end orchestration, or cross-system automation. When they work well, they can be powerful.

The second category focuses on removing work. These tools look at high-volume, repetitive tasks and ask a simpler question: how much of this can we absorb so your team doesn’t have to?

Both approaches have value. But they create very different operational experiences.

What rewiring work actually requires

Rewiring tools usually come with ambition. They want to improve your processes, harmonize variation across facilities, and build something cleaner than what exists today.

To do that, they need access. Integration work. Governance approvals. Workflow mapping. Training sessions. Change management plans. Often, multiple departments have to align before anything meaningful happens.

That’s not inherently bad. In fact, in some situations, it’s exactly what a system needs. But let’s be honest about what it feels like on the ground.

While integrations are scoped and workflows are redesigned, payer calls still have to be made. Eligibility issues still need resolution. Claims still age. Your centralized RCM teams don’t get to pause their workload while transformation is underway.

So now you’re running two tracks at once. Existing operations continue under strain, and a new system is layered on top. Even when the long-term vision makes sense, the short-term pressure increases.

If you’ve ever lived through a long pilot that drained momentum before results showed up, you know how this story plays out. That dynamic was unpacked more directly in Health Systems Don’t Have an AI Problem. They Have a Time-to-Value Problem.

The challenge isn’t ambition. It’s bandwidth.

What removing work feels like instead

Now think about a different kind of tool.

Instead of asking your team to change how they work, it quietly absorbs part of what they’re already doing. High-volume tasks. Repetitive follow-ups. The kind of payer phone calls that eat hours without moving strategy forward.

Your workflows don’t have to be redesigned. Governance doesn’t have to be reinvented. IT involvement might be lighter. The team doesn’t have to relearn their roles.

The volume just drops.

That kind of relief shows up quickly. Backlogs shrink. Hold time disappears from human calendars. Experienced staff spend less time on endurance work and more time on judgment calls.

There’s no sweeping transformation narrative. Just visible capacity returning to the system.

Why this distinction matters more at scale

In small environments, rewiring work can feel manageable. The number of stakeholders is smaller. The variability is lower. Change can move faster.

In health systems, everything multiplies.

Centralized RCM teams already absorb variability from across facilities. They deal with payer differences, local practices, and upstream data inconsistencies every day. That concentration of complexity was explored in When RCM Centralizes, Payer Chaos Follows.

When you introduce a tool that requires major workflow change on top of that, you’re adding coordination cost to an already tight environment.

That’s why many experienced leaders increasingly prioritize removing work first. Stabilize. Create breathing room. Then optimize.

The hidden risk of rewiring before relieving

Here’s what doesn’t always get discussed openly.

When teams are already stretched, large transformation efforts can unintentionally increase fragility. Training pulls experienced staff away from production. Workflow changes introduce temporary confusion. Escalations rise while people adjust.

Metrics might not move immediately, especially in large systems where health system RCM metrics often mask the real effort required to hold performance steady. That masking effect was examined in Why Health System RCM Metrics Hide the Real Work.

From a leadership perspective, it can look like change isn’t delivering. From the floor, it can feel like more weight has been added without relief.

That’s how skepticism builds.

Removing work isn’t small thinking

Some leaders worry that focusing on removing work sounds incremental or conservative. In practice, it’s often the most pragmatic path forward.

When you reduce high-volume, low-leverage tasks, you free up capacity. That capacity creates space for larger improvements. It also rebuilds trust.

Teams are more willing to adopt deeper workflow changes once they’ve experienced tangible relief. Momentum returns. Conversations shift from “we can’t handle another initiative” to “what’s next?”

Removing work can be the first move in a longer transformation. It doesn’t compete with rewiring. It makes rewiring survivable.

Where payer work fits into this conversation

If you look at health system revenue cycles honestly, payer phone work sits at the center of this distinction.

Calls for eligibility clarification, prior authorization follow-up, and claim status checks don’t typically improve strategy. They keep the machine running. They’re necessary, but they’re repetitive and time-consuming.

That’s why some organizations are turning to tools designed to absorb that specific layer of workload. Solutions like SuperDial focus on reducing high-volume payer interactions without requiring a redesign of how your RCM team operates.

The goal isn’t to rebuild your system from scratch. It’s to give your people some of their time back.

A practical way to evaluate your next tool

The next time you’re evaluating software, try a simple lens.

Ask yourself: is this tool asking us to rewire how we work, or is it removing work we’re already doing?

There’s a place for both. But the order matters.

In health systems operating under constant pressure, relief often needs to come before reinvention. If you stabilize the load first, your organization is in a much stronger position to take on bigger changes later.

You don’t need transformation to begin with transformation. Sometimes you just need fewer things on hold.

‍