One of the reasons change is so slow in the industry is because there are many must-be-coordinated changes, with various independent parties.
E.g. if I update my system, you need to update your system
From what I saw, one of the biggest motivators would be carving out legal protections for trialing some smaller % of total workflow under new systems.
E.g. If you moved < 5% of your claims handling to a new automated system, and it started rejecting claims that there was an informal understanding would be patched up on the insurance side, then nobody could be sued via intra-party contracts (but still beholden to national / federal guidelines, of course)
By decreasing that first burden of migration, you might get more traction in aggressive IT updates.
> How much end to end efficiency do you think a proper/average IT healthcare system would bring ?
I have a long history in proper IT, and I'm very legally/regulationally knowledgeable, and in my two healthcare gigs I've made friends of the medical staff for improving responsiveness in IT and making things easier to use, while also reducing security problems by having both of those worlds of knowledge. Usually top IT management isn't technically knowledgeable, and frequently they're not even that good with regulatory knowledge. That makes it hard on the rank and file to be efficient. Not to pay my own back too much, but being well versed in both regs and tech helps a LOT in user satisfaction.
And it's not only an IT systems problem. It's a comprehensive systems problem.
Which includes training, and counterparty expectations, and manual data entry, etc.