Expectations placed on the data office have shifted faster than its mandate. Leaders are no longer judged on report delivery, but on whether data work materially protects margin, improves operational efficiency, and supports enterprise change such as M&A, platform consolidation, or new care models. Yet many teams remain stuck in a service posture, reacting to inbound demand with little authority to challenge priorities or stop low-value work. Without explicit ownership of outcomes, prioritisation rights, and clear success measures, even mature teams regress into ticket queues. The point is not tooling, it is redefining what the data office is accountable for, and what it is allowed to say no to.
Everyone can find high-cost patients, far fewer can run interventions that actually change utilization without collapsing under operational reality. The hard part is not the model, it is aligning clinical, claims, and context signals into segments teams can work, then measuring impact fairly when churn and benefit design shift the ground underneath you.
As healthcare organizations accelerate investment in AI, analytics, and digital platforms, many risk drifting from their core mandate – delivering care. Technology environments are growing more complex, filled with dashboards, alerts, and customization that increase cognitive burden without always improving outcomes. Are we becoming tech companies that deliver care, rather than care organizations enabled by technology? A reset is needed.
• Discuss how to simplify the stack, reduce noise, and align technology with real clinical and operational needs
• Debate how to best ensure focus when considering your next investments
Capital and operating budgets are under sharp pressure, especially in Medicaid-heavy and non-profit settings. Data leaders are being asked to demonstrate short-term financial impact without abandoning longer-term clinical and strategic goals; many admit that their current business cases are either too technical or too aspirational to survive CFO scrutiny. So what do we do? Understanding what the finance team prioritize, and balancing innovation with responsible spend starts with awareness. This interactive session bridges the gap between data & finance leaders to demystify what grants projects the greenlight.
Healthcare organizations are surrounded by AI that technically works but quietly goes unused. The failure rarely sits in model accuracy; it shows up in workflow friction, unclear scope, and tools that feel like homework rather than help. Frontline teams disengage when AI adds clicks, interrupts flow, or delivers answers without usable context.
Data leaders want to experiment with AI agents and predictive models, but access to real patient data often takes months. While teams are stuck waiting for data the market moves on. The question is not whether synthetic data replaces real data, but where it meaningfully accelerates progress before full-scale deployment.
CDOs want "Self-Service" to scale adoption, yet users complain that they can’t find anything or don't know which dashboard is the source of truth. The failure of self-service is rarely a lack of access, and is usually the product of discoverability gaps. Users are used to the "Amazon Experience"-search bars, user ratings, and certified badges, yet internal data portals often feel like a messy file share.
For CDOs, the hardest part of M&A consolidation isn't merging finances; it's merging patient data. As health systems acquire hospitals and practices with disparate EMRs, single patient view becomes a herculean task. Duplicate records proliferate, referrals get lost, and efficiency dips because the system cannot recognize the same patient across different facilities.
AI ambition is high, but pilot purgatory is crowded. While much of the industry focuses on high-profile diagnostic moonshots, many of the most durable gains are coming from less glamorous, operational use cases. Ambient documentation, inbox automation, and discharge prediction are delivering value not because they are revolutionary, but because they fit existing infrastructure, workflows, and trust boundaries. What happens when teams stop chasing hype and confront a more uncomfortable question: what can our data, workflows, and operating model reliably support today?
The so-called “unicorn” candidate, fluent in modern data stacks and deeply grounded in healthcare operations, is effectively non-existent at scale. Leaders are realizing they cannot hire their way out of this crunch; they have to manufacture capability deliberately. This panel examines how organizations are redesigning the talent supply chain itself, moving beyond salary debates to structural solutions. From internal data academies that convert domain experts into analytics talent, to global delivery models that expand capacity without losing context, the focus is on building teams that can actually sustain data and AI ambition.
For decades, claim denials were treated as operational failures, errors to be fixed through cleaner data, better interoperability, and clearer rules. Yet many leaders now privately acknowledge a harder truth: administrative friction may be doing exactly what parts of the system are designed to do, control utilization, manage risk, and protect margins.
Across providers and payers, data and analytics leaders face an uncomfortable mix: rising expectations for AI and automation, persistent foundational gaps, workforce strain and uncertain reimbursement landscapes. Some organizations are doubling down on growth and innovation, others are consolidating and cutting. The role of the CDO, CAO and CIO are being re-written in that tension.