•
Insights
Why 'frictionless' is a myth, and what actually works
The ambition, and the reality
In healthcare, systems are expected to work for all patients. This includes different age groups, varying levels of digital literacy, and different levels of comfort with financial products. In theory, this suggests the patient journey should be frictionless and universally accessible. In practice, this is not achievable.
Friction cannot be eliminated
Even within a single demographic, some patients are confident using digital tools and others are not. Some are comfortable sharing financial information and others hesitate.
Certain elements of finance applications inherently introduce friction: terminology, data entry, identity verification, and affordability checks. These are not design flaws. They are structural requirements.
The objective is therefore not to eliminate all friction, but to optimise for the majority of patients while supporting edge cases effectively.
The most important decision: the device
Across large-scale application data, one pattern is clear. The patient's own mobile is the dominant device.
Patients can technically apply via desktop, tablet, practice computer, or paper-based processes. In practice, more than 80% of applications occur on mobile devices.
Mobile applications are faster, more familiar, and require less effort, because personal data is pre-stored, addresses auto-fill, and payment details are readily available. Applying via mobile is approximately twice as fast as desktop.
Where applications actually happen
Patients do not always complete applications immediately in-practice. Some apply during the visit, others apply shortly after, and most complete within a short time window.
The data is striking:
Around 90% of patients who receive a link start the application
Around 97 to 99% of those who start complete it
Around 90% of completed applications occur within 24 hours
When intent exists, completion is extremely high. The challenge is not the form. It is maintaining momentum.
The hidden friction: delivery and connectivity
One of the most overlooked constraints is not UX but infrastructure. Key risks include delayed or missed emails, spam filtering, weak mobile signal, and complex Wi-Fi access.
The practical implication is that practices must ensure reliable 4G or 5G coverage, or fast, frictionless Wi-Fi access. Without connectivity, even a well-designed journey fails.
UX design: reducing avoidable friction
Where friction can be reduced, it should be. Three principles matter most:
Minimise required fields. Fewer inputs lead to higher completion.
Design mobile-first, optimised for small screens.
Use simple inputs, such as radio buttons over dropdowns, with clear progression.
Decisioning: a layered system
Not all patients will pass initial checks. Common issues include incorrect data entry, missing credit data, and unverifiable income.
The solution is layered decisioning. Instead of rejecting applications:
Automated decision
Open banking fallback
Document upload, such as payslips
Identity verification, such as photo ID
Best-in-class systems achieve 95% or more automated decisions. This is particularly achievable in dentistry due to low fraud rates and high applicant quality.
The risk of sequential friction
Fallbacks are necessary, but they introduce risk. Each additional step increases effort and reduces completion probability. Fallbacks must therefore be efficient, minimally sequential, and clearly guided.
Completion friction: intent is not completion
Unlike card payments, finance introduces a delay between decision and completion. Even after approval, not all patients complete immediately.
In most cases, non-completion is not due to rejection of treatment. It is due to distraction, interruption, and competing priorities, such as leaving the practice, commuting, or attending other commitments. Non-completion often reflects loss of momentum, not loss of intent.
Active management: the missing layer
Automated nudges by email and SMS are necessary and effective, but they are generic and not context-aware. They cannot fully replace human follow-up.
Practices that maximise finance conversion do not treat it as a one-step process. They treat it as a managed journey. This requires:
Real-time application tracking
Visibility into patient status: started, submitted, approved, pending completion
Regular review, daily or weekly
Targeted follow-up
Practice teams, including treatment coordinators, reception, and managers, can reconnect with patients, address treatment-related questions, and guide next steps. Importantly, follow-up is rarely about finance itself. It is often about treatment clarity, timing, or reassurance.
A critical operational gap: booking behaviour
One of the most overlooked differences between card payments and finance is how booking is handled.
With card payments, payment is immediate and the appointment is booked instantly. With finance, even when the patient is present, approved, and committed, many practices delay booking and wait for funds to be received.
There is a common belief that finance requires a cooling-off period. This is incorrect in an in-practice setting. The consequence is that patients who choose finance often experience delayed booking, additional waiting, and unnecessary friction. Effectively, they receive a worse experience than card-paying patients despite committing to the same treatment.
This is not a regulatory issue. It is a training and process issue. Practices can treat approved finance patients the same as card payers, confirm and book appointments immediately, and maintain momentum from decision to treatment. Conversion is not complete at approval. It is complete at booking.
Final takeaway
Patient finance does not fail because patients do not understand it, or because applications are too complex. It fails when momentum is lost, processes are fragmented, and responsibility is unclear.
The objective is not to eliminate friction. It is to design for the majority, support edge cases, actively manage completion, and maintain momentum through to booking.