Work
Strengthening a healthcare proposition with evidence
A marketing technology company wanted to make its healthcare proposition more specific and credible. We researched the day-to-day experiences of healthcare professionals, identified where payor and administrative processes were creating friction and tested what forms of technology-enabled support they valued. The findings gave the company direct evidence from healthcare professionals that connected its platform capabilities to real healthcare needs.
The need
Make the healthcare proposition relevant to problems providers were actually dealing with
The company understood the capabilities it wanted to bring into healthcare, particularly around data, administration and reimbursement.
The challenge was making that relevance clear to prospects. A broad message about better technology still required healthcare audiences to work out for themselves how the platform connected to the problems they encountered in practice.
The company needed independent evidence that could establish where those problems occurred, how significant they were and what better support looked like from the perspective of healthcare professionals.
The starting point
Product knowledge without enough first-hand evidence from the people dealing with the problem
The company already knew what its technology could do.
What it lacked was a current, consistent view of the workflows and frustrations surrounding payors, treatment approval and reimbursement, and whether the types of support its technology could enable addressed problems healthcare professionals actually cared about.
That meant reaching people with direct experience rather than surveying a broad healthcare audience.
What we did
Followed the problem from everyday friction through to the support healthcare professionals valued
We surveyed 207 US healthcare professionals, including physicians, nurses, dentists and other healthcare roles, recruited through a specialist panel.
Respondents had to be directly or indirectly involved with payors through activities such as securing prior authorization, submitting appeals, communicating with payors, complying with payor requirements or monitoring reimbursement.
The research first established the pressures healthcare professionals were dealing with and how frequently particular problems occurred. It then examined their experiences with payors in more detail, including prior authorization, claims and reimbursement.
That made the friction specific. 58% said they encountered problems working with payors at least weekly. Prior authorization was the most common payor interaction, while claims denials, administrative complexity and treatment approval were among the most commonly reported difficulties.
We then moved from problems to possible support. The study examined the tools healthcare organizations were already using, what improvements healthcare professionals wanted from payors and how valuable they found specific data and AI-enabled capabilities.
Respondents were more receptive to technology that reduced administrative work than to AI taking a larger role in clinical judgment. Automated insurance verification and treatment-cost estimation was the most highly valued capability tested, rated valuable by 74% of respondents.
The analysis therefore provided more than evidence that healthcare was difficult. It showed where the friction sat, which forms of support healthcare professionals valued and where technology could credibly enter the story.
What they got
Evidence from healthcare professionals for messaging and go-to-market decisions
The findings were analyzed to identify role-level needs and connect specific points of friction with relevant commercial opportunities.
That gave the company proof points it could use to make its healthcare proposition more precise. Instead of starting with platform capabilities, it could begin with problems healthcare professionals recognized and then show where relevant capabilities could help.
The work was translated into executive materials and dashboards that allowed teams to explore the findings and use them in planning, messaging and prospect engagement.
Why it mattered
The company could make the case for its platform through healthcare professionals' experience rather than through product claims alone
The research connected the customer problem directly to platform relevance.
It also helped define the boundaries of the story. The evidence did not simply say that healthcare professionals wanted more AI. It showed stronger interest in practical administrative support, such as insurance verification and cost estimation, than in technology taking over clinical decisions.
What healthcare professionals said gave the company a specific, credible basis for explaining where its technology could add value.