Hiring vs. Automating: How to Decide What Your Practice Needs Next
Every growing practice eventually hits the same fork: the workload has exceeded current capacity, and the instinct is usually to hire. Sometimes that's right. Often, automating the underlying workflow is the better first move — and skipping straight to hiring just adds payroll on top of an inefficient process. When you face a hire or automate healthcare practice decision, you need a clear framework.
The distinction: if the bottleneck is genuinely judgment-based work (complex patient conversations, nuanced billing disputes, clinical support), hiring is usually right. If the bottleneck is repetitive, rules-based work (scheduling, reminders, basic follow-up, routine data entry), automating first is usually cheaper, faster to implement, and doesn't carry the ongoing cost and management overhead of a new hire. A useful test: would a well-trained new employee doing this task follow essentially the same script every time? If yes, that's a strong automation candidate before it's a hiring need.
Frequently Asked Questions
Should a practice hire or automate first when workload increases?
If the bottleneck is repetitive, rules-based work, automating is usually the better first move. If it's genuinely judgment-based work, hiring is typically the right call.
How do I know if a task should be automated instead of hired for?
If a well-trained employee would follow essentially the same script every time performing the task, it's a strong automation candidate before it becomes a hiring need.
Dr. Andre (The other one without the hit records) lol 😄