Discover how CFOs can align tech investments with mission-driven strategies.
In the most recent episode of The Winning Edge, Moffitt Cancer Center's VP of Revenue Cycle Lynn Ansley dove into the imperative structure of aligning technology investments with purpose, tailored strategy and workforce, particularly in revenue cycle.
By integrating financial, IT, and clinical teams early in planning, Moffitt avoids the common pitfall of fragmented tech stacks and builds scalable, patient-centered solutions.
For finance executives, items like cost-to-collect, FTE optimization, and patient satisfaction must all be part of the ROI equation. But as Moffitt proves, success ultimately hinges on cross-departmental alignment, measurable milestones, and a mission-first mindset.
Hit play on the full webinar for a deep dive into how finance executives can define a clear-cut strategy for thoughtful investing, implementation, and recognizing crucial ROI on their tech investments.
Technology transformation isn’t just about automation—it’s about aligning financial strategy, patient experience, and mission-driven outcomes.
In the latest episode of The Winning Edge, Moffitt Cancer Center’s VP of revenue cycle Lynn Ansley dove into the key considerations when investing in technology for revenue cycle.
Moffitt evaluates every revenue cycle technology investment by its impact on cost-to-collect, tying operational efficiency directly to the organization’s ability to fund cancer research. By integrating financial, IT, and clinical teams early in planning, Moffitt avoids the common pitfall of fragmented tech stacks and builds scalable, patient-centered solutions.
Check out what Ansley had to say for healthcare leaders looking to bring on new technology in the revenue cycle.
At Moffitt Cancer Center, true revenue cycle transformation means aligning financial strategy, patient experience, and mission-driven outcomes.
In healthcare today the difference between financial resilience and operational strain often hinges on the strength of the revenue cycle. In the most recent episode of HealthLeader’s The Winning Edge series, Lynn Ansley, Vice President of Revenue Cycle at Moffitt Cancer Center, offered healthcare finance executives a detailed look at how one of the nation’s leading oncology institutions strategically invests in revenue cycle technology.
Ansley’s insights, rooted in both operational rigor and a mission-driven approach, underscore the importance of collaborative planning, financial discipline, and patient-centric innovation.
Building the Business Case with Finance and IT
Ansley emphasized the critical intersection of finance, IT, and operations in revenue cycle leadership. At Moffitt, she says, collaboration with both the CFO and CIO is thoughtful and strategic. With the CFO being a former VP of Revenue Cycle, there’s a shared language and mutual understanding that allows for more a effective evaluation of technology investments.
“When we go to approach a new technology at Moffitt, we are non-profit, so we need to clearly justify the return on investment in hard dollar savings to the organization,” Ansley said. “It’s important to build a business case that's easy to understand, one that highlights both the investment of resources to get the technology up and running, and then the ongoing support.”
Tackling Prior Authorization with RPA and AI
One standout success story is Moffitt’s financial clearance unit. Faced with rising treatment volumes and complex payer requirements, Moffitt has leveraged rules-based automation (RBA) to streamline prior authorizations. Over three years, automation rates have climbed from 48% to over 61%, even as case volumes have doubled.
Looking forward, Ansley sees AI playing a crucial role in peer-to-peer authorization workflows. By supporting high-skilled staff in navigating payer criteria and overturning denials, AI enables top-of-license work and strengthens cash flow without expanding FTEs.
Unified Tech Stacks and Cost-to-Collect
Fragmented technology is a major challenge in the healthcare revenue cycle. Ansley stressed the importance of reducing cost-to-collect as a primary driver of performance.
“We’ve maintained flat FTEs for four years by supplementing our team with the equivalent of 471 FTEs, or traditional emulators, in automation,” she shared.
Moffitt ties technology evaluation directly to enterprise KPIs like days in AR, denial rates, and ultimately, cash collections. The organization has also matured in publicizing and aligning these metrics across departments, reinforcing system-wide accountability.
Cybersecurity: A Revenue Cycle Imperative
A February 2024 cyberattack sent a clear message to revenue leaders: downtime preparedness is non-negotiable. At Moffitt, cybersecurity planning has evolved from IT-led to enterprise-wide, with quarterly tabletop exercises now part of revenue cycle operations.
“If you can't get claims out the door, you can't bring cash in the door," Ansley warned.
Ansley compared planning for cyberattacks to hurricane preparedness. During crises like natural disasters or cyberattacks, the organization requires all hands on deck, another example of cross-functional resilience.
Pragmatic AI Budgeting and Responsible Scaling
When evaluating emerging technologies like AI-powered coding or financial engagement tools, Ansley advised leaders to focus on what’s “ready for prime time.” She stressed the importance of identifying early ROI milestones rather than pitching an idealized, multi-year vision.
“If you make tracking ROI difficult, it just doesn’t get done,” she said.
Patient Experience as a Core Metric
While much of the discussion focused on efficiency and savings, Ansley circled back to Moffitt’s mission: curing cancer. Any technology, especially those with patient-facing uses, must enhance the patient journey. Moffitt even requires review by its Patient and Family Advisory Council before implementing such tools.
Looking ahead, Ansley pointed to autonomous coding and generative AI as areas of excitement, reinforcing that a “technology-enabled workforce” is essential for future-ready revenue cycle operations.
For finance executives, items like cost-to-collect, FTE optimization, and patient satisfaction must all be part of the ROI equation. But as Moffitt proves, success ultimately hinges on cross-departmental alignment, measurable milestones, and a mission-first mindset.
CFOs are stepping beyond traditional financial roles to drive strategic technology adoption, leading or participating in initiatives in AI, cybersecurity, and operational efficiency to support long-term growth under evolving payment models.
The healthcare landscape is evolving, and so is the CFO role, expanding beyond financial stewardship into strategic technology leadership.
As technology investments influence capital planning, finance leaders are working alongside clinical and innovation teams to evaluate tools for long-term financial value.
The next episode in HealthLeaders’ The Winning Edge series will explore the impact of technology on risk-based payment models, capital planning and operational efficiency.
They will dive into the growing importance of financial strategy in issues like cybersecurity, virtual care and clinial AI, and discuss how the CFO can collaborate with other members of the C-Suite to affect technology purchases.
This episode will also highlight how forward-looking systems are shifting from fragmented tech stacks to unified, data-driven platforms that enhance decision-making and reduce waste.
At Denver Health, for example, Audain’s team launched an ambient AI program in 2024 that saw a 59% reduction in provider burnout, a 40% reduction in time spent by clinicians typing instead of interacting with a patient, and a 13% reduction in time spent after hours in the EHR.
At Moffitt, Ansley’s team is looking at how AI can help improve the revenue cycle management process, including lowering the organization's cost to collect. According to Ansley, success in this journey depends on creating a culture of innovation and using data-driven roadmaps to scale tech responsibly and lower costs.
This episode of The Winning Edge will explore how finance leaders are partnering with the C-suite to assess emerging technologies for long-term sustainability, as well as real-world use cases of AI/ML adoption, and how leaders are budgeting and scaling these tools responsibly.
It will also dive into how strategic tech investments (e.g., predictive analytics, population health tools, care coordination platforms) are enabling success under risk-based payment models and improving operational efficiency.
Whether you're evaluating your next major IT investment or working to align digital strategy with financial performance, this episode will offer actionable guidance on how CFOs can lead with vision and invest with impact for their organization.
Hospitals and health systems must strategically manage rising GLP-1 costs while balancing workforce health and long-term financial sustainability.
GLP-1 therapies such as Ozempic, Wegovy, and Mounjaro are rapidly changing the conversation around obesity, diabetes, and population health. But for hospital and health system executives, the rise in utilization of these medications presents a dual-edged sword: on one hand, the potential for transformational clinical outcomes; on the other, a surge in employer healthcare spending and formulary disruption.
In the latest HealthLeaders Winning Edge webinar, titled “The Winning Edge for Employer GLP-1 Cost Containment,” a panel of healthcare experts examined how health systems and self-insured employers can create responsible, outcomes-oriented benefit strategies that promote access without financial overexposure.
Panelists included Dr. Sandy Baldwin, Chief Medical Officer for Northwell Direct, Bill Lacy, President and CEO of the Association for Corporate Health Risk Management (ACHRM), and Dr. Jeff Post, Chief Clinical Officer at RX Connection.
Together, they offered a compelling roadmap for health systems balancing cost containment, workforce wellness, and innovation. Watch the entire video below.
The rent-vs.-buy decision is no longer a back-office issue. It’s a strategic lever—one that can improve liquidity, agility, and patient care.
As hospital margins tighten and technology evolves, the decision to rent or buy medical equipment is critical.
According to a Precedence Research survey, some 46% of U.S. hospitals used equipment rental in 2024, indicating a growing trend of hospitals turning to rental to manage budgets. For CFOs, understanding the strategic implications of equipment acquisition is paramount.
With inflation, shifting interest rates, and federal reimbursement challenges, the traditional capital purchase model is being challenged by flexibility, speed, and lifecycle management concerns, according to Bettyann Bird, chief strategy officer at medical equipment company Agiliti.
“It's almost reorienting historically how we've gone about thinking about rental vs. capital,” she says. Bird spent her early years in health care as a trauma and intensive care nurse, gaining first hand experience in using medical equipment.
The Upside of Renting
One of the strongest arguments in favor of renting is financial flexibility. Equipment rental typically requires lower upfront costs, which preserves capital for higher-yield investments or urgent expenditures.
“You can avoid tying up millions [of dollars] in depreciating assets,” Bird notes.
This is particularly valuable for startups, outpatient facilities, and hospitals navigating uncertain volumes. CFOs must think critically about how much their system actually uses its equipment. They must also understand all of the additional costs that come with purchasing equipment.
“The total cost of ownership is so much more than just the device itself,” Bird says. “It's the training. It's the parts. It's the time. It's a whole lot more, and oftentimes that's not taken into consideration. That is something that CFOs and supply chains should certainly be aware of, but I don't know that that's still registering as much right now.”
“Specifically,” Bird says, “we find that hospitals need to incorporate probably an additional 10% of whatever the price of that device to accommodate for that additional cost.”
Another often-overlooked benefit to renting is maintenance and service bundling. Most rental agreements include full service and maintenance, eliminating unexpected repair costs and reducing the need for some in-house staff; this can streamline operations and lower total cost of ownership.
Renting also allows organizations to stay current with technology. With equipment life cycles getting shorter—especially for diagnostic imaging and some surgical robotics—rentals enable easy upgrades without being stuck with outdated machines. Bird says renting can ultimately give CFOs a hedge against obsolescence.
Tariffs have also impacted this space, according to Bird.
“I would say that probably there's been a decrease in capital purchasing because of tariffs and so we're actually seeing rentals go up right now as hospitals try to get their head around it,” Bird says.
Weighing the Factors
Jonathan Ma, CFO of Sutter Health, says he is open about the many considerations that go into the decision of purchasing vs renting.
“It depends on a lot of different factors,” he says. “We're trying to balance obviously the financial considerations of it all, but also the scale of the rapidity with technology changes and making sure we have our physician inputs as well.”
“I think there are different perspectives out there, and for our system we have a mix of both approaches. It's actually a trade-off that we look at frequently,” Ma says.
Ma acknowledges that there is not a universal answer when deciding to buy or rent. Since the factors vary for every system, CFOs must scrutinize and understand the needs of their system through their data and clinical teams.
Another factor hospitals are considering, Bird says, is purchasing revenue-generating equipment, such as ultrasounds, diagnostic imaging or even beds. For a piece of equipment to be revenue generating, it must be a durable device that enables the hospital to provide services and procedures, ultimately contributing to income. Beds, for example, are needed because if there isn’t a bed, there can’t be a patient. Equipment like disposal medical supplies, or training equipment, would be non-revenue-generating. CFOs should be looking at their patient population to uncover what specific equipment brings in more revenue and can be multipurposed not only for inpatient services, but outpatient too.
The Drawbacks and Hidden Costs
Despite these advantages, renting comes with potential downsides. Over time, long-term rental costs can exceed purchase costs, particularly for high-utilization equipment like infusion pumps or patient monitors.
“You’re paying for convenience and risk mitigation,” Bird warns, “but over a five-year span, you may pay twice the asset’s value.”
Another issue is availability and consistency. In peak demand periods such as flu season or during public health emergencies, rental inventory may be scarce. Additionally, rented equipment may vary in quality by brand or model, potentially complicating staff training and clinical protocols.
CFOs must also pay close attention to contract terms; hidden fees for late returns, equipment damage, or extended usage can significantly bloat costs and ultimately hurt the bottom line. Establishing clear payment timelines or setting up an automated payment process can help mitigate this potential pitfall.
A Balanced CFO Approach
CFOs can develop a hybrid acquisition strategy that blends both rental and purchase models, depending on utilization rates, clinical needs, and asset value. Many health systems already do this. High-usage, mission-critical equipment is usually better when bought, while rarely used or rapidly evolving technology can be rented.
To assess the best option, finance leaders should partner with clinical and supply chain teams to analyze usage patterns and projected demand. Bird advises CFOs to look at asset turnover ratios, maintenance logs, and capital budget forecasts side by side, then layer in a total cost of ownership analysis that includes depreciation, tax benefits, and potential resale value.
Furthermore, contract negotiations should be rigorous. CFOs should scrutinize service-level agreements, exit clauses, and escalation terms. Also, they can negotiate a better price point if they’re contracting for a long-term rental.
Bird advises CFOs to not treat rental as an operational expense to approve blindly, emphasizing that it needs the same scrutiny as a capital investment.
Contract labor still strains margins for many health systems.
In a healthcare landscape as turbulent as today’s, finance leaders are forced to scrutinize every detail of their operations. With labor costs skyrocketing since the pandemic, reducing reliance on contract labor has been a large pain point for finance executives.
While contract labor helped UW Health remain operational during staffing crises, the extended use of high-premium positions has strained financials and tested long-term viability. In this episode of HL shorts, UWHealth’s vice president of finance Jodilynn Vitello discusses the impacts of heightened contract labor on finance and beyond.
For a deep dive into UW Health’s labor strategy checkout the accompanying article with Vitello full interview.
Could health systems ditch traditional high-deductible health plans for direct primary care models?
Direct Primary Care (DPC) models can stabilize income and reduce administrative overhead, but success hinges on clear patient education, defined service scopes, and compliance with evolving state regulations. With a payment model where patients pay a recurring flat fee directly to providers for defined primary care services, bypassing insurers and the complexity of claims-based billing becomes accessible.
While DPC appeals to patients facing Medicaid cuts or high-deductible plans, up-front costs may still deter low-income individuals. CFOs must note that even financially sound strategies can erode public trust if not paired with compassion, advocacy, and equitable access safeguards.
Check out this infographic for what CFOs should consider before implementing a model like DPC.
Also check out the accomapniynig articles, part one and part two.
As financial pressures grow, CFOs are eyeing Direct Primary Care as a more stable, patient-focused alternative—though not without risks and regulatory challenges.
For a CFO, uncompensated care is an acute sore spot. High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) are on the rise as payers and employers attempt to control costs, leaving more patients unable to afford care.
In part one of this two-part story, we examined how looming Medicaid cuts are pressuring CFOs even more to find stable financial footing, and how direct primary care models could offer a viable solution for some markets.
Direct primary care models (DPC) allow patients to pay a recurring flat fee directly to providers for defined primary care services, bypassing insurers and the complexity of claims-based billing. Direct primary care models could offer CFOs a clearer, more predictable revenue path, but they also come with certain risks and patient expectations.
Risks, Regulations, and Patient Expectations
Despite its benefits, DPC requires careful implementation. Patients may misunderstand what is (and isn’t) covered.
"Clear contracts and a detailed fee schedule of services included are essential to set expectations," said Hari Prasad, CEO of Yosi Health, a New York City-based concierge medicine provider. Furthermore, some states have regulatory ambiguity around direct patient-provider contracts.
Affordability is another concern, particularly for lower-income patients. Still, for many, especially those navigating Medicaid instability or HDHPs, DPC offers value. "Patients appreciate knowing they will not face surprise bills for covered primary care," Prasad said.
To prepare for these risks around regulations and patient expectations, CFOs should engage compliance teams early to navigate state-specific DPC regulations, develop patient education materials to clarify the scope of services, and potentially offer sliding scale or hybrid models to expand access while preserving financial sustainability. There is room for flexibility within the DPC model if providers can develop a clear, comprehensive strategy around implementation.
Balancing Innovation with Ethics and Trust
The pay-first aspect of DPC echoes broader conversations in the industry around pre-payment. Just a few months ago, the industry witnessed the backlash aimed at Cleveland Clinic for implementing its pay-now policy, enough that it was reversed shortly after. While Cleveland Clinic’s model was inherently different from a DPC model, the incident still highlights the ethical factors in implementing a new payment model and how it affects healthcare access to lower income patients.
Rick Gundling, senior vice president at HFMA, points out that, "As out-of-pocket costs for consumers have grown… providers are much more at risk for nonpayment." However, Gundling also emphasizes the need for trust: "Compassion, patient advocacy, and education should be part of all patient discussions."
At the recent annual HFMA conference, Gundling presented a five- step framework for CFOs to make ethically-sound financial decisions.
"Ensuring a good financial experience for patients is important for many reasons—it reduces administrative costs and improves financial results for healthcare organizations, it enhances patient satisfaction and loyalty, and—perhaps most importantly—it helps patients make better decisions about their healthcare," said Gundling.
For DPC to succeed, health systems must tread carefully, and, like every innovation in healthcare, must combine financial innovation with a commitment to transparency and equity.
As financial tension grows to new heights, the industry demands a plan to reshape outdated processes. For finance leaders, the time is right to explore how.
Could health systems ditch traditional high-deductible health plans for direct primary care models?
As healthcare CFOs contend with growing financial pressures—from high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) to rising uncompensated care—many are exploring alternatives to the traditional fee-for-service (FFS) model. One such model gaining traction is Direct Primary Care (DPC), where patients pay a recurring flat fee directly to providers for defined primary care services, bypassing insurers and the complexity of claims-based billing.
A DPC model can fundamentally change a health system’s revenue for the better, according to Hari Prasad, CEO of Yosi Health, a software platform focused on creating an easier way for patient intake. For CFOs, this represents a seismic shift in financial predictability and operational efficiency.
RCM Stabilization & Simplification
With a DPC model, health systems receive consistent monthly or annual payments directly from patients, which can improve cash-flow forecasting.
"Instead of waiting for insurance adjudication and reimbursements, practices receive consistent monthly or annual payments... [DPC is] making cash‐flow forecasting far more reliable," Prasad said.
Additionally, DPC significantly reduces the administrative burden of revenue cycle management, particularly in claims submission, follow-ups, and denials. This can allow finance teams to reallocate resources toward high-acuity billing or other strategic projects.
To make this model actionable, CFOs can consider strategic partnerships with DPC-affiliated primary care groups to stabilize outpatient revenue. Making effective technology investments that support subscription-based billing and patient engagement, and realigning RCM staff toward complex service lines like inpatient and specialty care are also necessary.
Alleviating Uncompensated Care
"As out-of-pocket costs for consumers have grown, given the growth of HDHPs, providers are much more at risk for nonpayment," said Rick Gundling, Senior Vice President at the Healthcare Financial Management Association (HFMA) and a former CFO.
With incoming Medicaid cuts, every CFO is stressed about uncompensated care, especially those at smaller and rural systems. In rural and safety-net hospitals, where bad debt from delayed or deferred care runs high, DPC could offer a proactive solution.
"By offering affordable, transparent flat fees—often well below high insurance-plan deductibles—DPC can encourage timely primary care," says Prasad. This shift could even prevent downstream ER overutilization and reduce costly acute episodes.
For hospitals, this creates an opportunity to reshape service distribution, as many routine visits become ‘in‐house’ subscription services, therefore easing uncompensated care burdens, according to Prasad.
To zoom in on this connection to community ER utilization, CFOs can work with their teams to analyze ER utilization data to identify patients who could be better served through a DPC option. If the model seems viable for their health system, CFOs can then pilot hybrid DPC programs alongside existing coverage models in high-need communities. Lastly, to determine the ROI of these programs, CFOs can quantify savings from reduced ER volume and reallocate resources to population health programs.
DPC may not replace traditional billing models systemwide, but for CFOs seeking financial predictability, to lower bad debt, and create leaner RCM operations, it presents a compelling strategy.
Check back on Monday for Part 2 where we’ll dive into the risks, regulations and patient expectations around direct primary care models, as well as the imperatives of ethics and trust in implementation.
