In a recent article for Becker’s Spine Review, Cordata CEO Gary Winzenread recounted meetings he had with two different spine groups, one of which had embraced intake care coordination whereas the other had not. The group using care coordination to filter patients had surgical conversion rates at nearly 30% — nearly ten times higher than the latter.
From a patient’s perspective, non-coordinated care can be costly in more ways than money, Winzenread writes:
Taking the view of patients, it’s easy to see how a lack of care coordination presents real issues. Chief among them is long and unnecessary delays in receiving the care they need, whether it’s physical therapy, physiatry or surgery. Beyond the lost time and money associated with unnecessary appointments, such delays in treatment may cause conditions to worsen, leading to higher-risk and higher-cost care in the long run (not to mention more lost work time).
Transitioning to a coordinated system can take time, however. Winzenread notes that current barriers include skeptical surgeons and technological limitations, and so the care coordinators must take a more proactive approach in demonstrating their value to providers:
By providing insights and information about particular patients, care coordination can help reduce the time and money wasted on appointments that don’t make sense or with caregivers patients don’t need to see. … Care coordination has clear benefits for both patients and the doctors — including spine surgeons — who treat them.