Consumer Choice Alone Won’t Deliver Value: The Case for Provider-Led Tech Decisions

Hubert van Dalen
Jul 8
4 min read

Updated: Jul 15

“Consumer Directed Care (CDC) rightly promotes choice—but often places excessive emphasis on the demand-side autonomy while ignoring the complexity of care delivery. In practice, providers should almost always lead technology decisions to ensure they are clinically sound, safe, and outcome-driven.”

Aged care providers are under increasing pressure to use more assistive technology to improve care outcomes. With funding now available under the Support at Home program, the focus is shifting from can we afford it? to is it worth it?

This brings us to the third influence/domain on sustainable tech adoption in aged and healthcare: The Value Proposition—a critical but often misunderstood influence on whether care technology succeeds or stalls.

Domain 3: The Value Proposition

The NASSS Framework defines value along two main lines:

3A. Supply-side value – Is the technology viable, investable, and scalable from the supplier’s point of view?
3B. Demand-side value – Is it usable, safe, affordable, and meaningful for the people and organisations expected to adopt it?

In practice, value must be multidimensional: meaningful to the provider, the care staff, the client, their family, and—ideally—society at large.

What the NARI Framework Covers Well

The NARI Implementation Framework acknowledges the importance of perceived benefit, especially from the perspective of clients and care teams. It encourages:

Assessing the perceived usefulness of the technology
Understanding whether clients and carers believe it will enhance care or independence
Considering how well the tech aligns with daily routines and expectations

This focus on lived experience is valuable and grounded in real-world service delivery.

What the NARI Framework Does Not Cover (the Value Proposition Gaps)

There is no structured way to calculate or demonstrate return on investment (ROI). NARI acknowledges the idea of “value” but offers no tools to help providers assess financial viability, track cost-benefit trade-offs, or build a case for board approval. Without this, implementation risks becoming a feel-good initiative with no long-term commitment.
It lacks attention to differentiated values across stakeholders. What is valuable to a CEO (reduced hospitalisations) may not be what matters to a care worker (ease of documentation) or a client (peace of mind). The framework does not help providers navigate these conflicting expectations—or reconcile them into a coherent business case.
It ignores system-level incentives and misalignments. There’s no exploration of how MBS, CHSP, or Support at Home reimbursement structures might support—or undermine—the perceived value of a technology. For example, a device that reduces GP callouts may save money for Medicare, but not for the care provider.
There is no link to strategic differentiation. Technology can be part of a competitive value proposition, especially in home care markets where client choice and provider reputation matter. The framework doesn’t help providers frame tech-enabled care as part of a broader market or brand strategy.
The “value over time” dimension is missing. It frames value at the point of introduction, but not across the client journey. Technologies that show little immediate payoff (e.g. preventive monitoring) may deliver their greatest value months later—but only if the organisation knows what to track.

Real-World Example: Whose Value Counts?

A provider rolls out a smart home monitoring system with motion and temperature sensors. For the vendor, it’s a solid sale. For management, it ticks the innovation box. But for the care staff—who now receive alerts they don’t have time to respond to—it’s just more noise.

Meanwhile, the client doesn’t even realise the system is active (which might be a good thing…)

The result? A product in place, but not enough meaningful value delivered.

Take away: If You Can’t Explain the Value, Don’t Expect Adoption

The most common cause of abandonment isn't technical—it’s strategic. If the people who are supposed to use a tool don’t see how it improves their life or work, they won’t use it—no matter how well-funded it is.

Technology must offer a clear, tangible benefit—backed by evidence and understood by all stakeholders—not just the consumer.

This is especially true in the context of Consumer Directed Care (CDC). While CDC rightly empowers individuals with greater choice and control, it places a disproportionate emphasis on demand-side autonomy without adequately addressing the supply-side complexity behind care delivery and technology selection.

Giving individuals full discretion over their technology spend—without guided triage, clinically proven options, or visibility into outcomes they may never fully understand—can be a serious inhibitor to long-term value.

In these cases, care providers should almost always lead the decision, based on shared care needs, safety considerations, and their professional insight into what works. This isn’t about removing choice—it’s about ensuring that choice is informed, supported, and grounded in clinical and operational reality.

Because when technology fails, it’s not just a lost investment—it’s a lost opportunity for better care.

Next Steps: Clarify the Value Before You Scale

Before rolling out technology, ask:

Who benefits—and how do we know?
What evidence supports the value claim?
Is that value aligned with funding, priorities, and staff capacity?
Can we measure and communicate value over time?

In Article 4, we’ll turn to the next influence: The Adopter System—and explore what it really takes to secure engagement from consumers, carers, and care teams.

Let’s keep the conversation going—because when value isn’t clear, adoption doesn’t follow.

Article 3/7: By Hubert van Dalen, Managing Director of eHomeCare, where he advises on the implementation of smart care technologies across the health, aged care, and disability sectors.