Managing Communication Preferences in Healthcare: Best Practices for Patient Engagement

April 23, 2024

Effective communication is more than just a necessity—it’s a cornerstone of exceptional patient care. Patients and members receiving healthcare services depend on their providers for solutions, support, and care. Establishing a relationship based on trust, consistency, and communication is vital between healthcare organizations and their clientele. Frequent, consistent, and personalized communication from healthcare providers holds increasing significance, and the opportunity for healthcare organizations to leverage technology in facilitating communication in secure, acceptable, and appropriate manners is large.  


As technology advances and patient expectations evolve, healthcare providers must adopt strategies that cater to diverse communication needs.


Why Managing Communication Preferences Matters in

Healthcare

Patient communication preferences vary widely—some prefer traditional methods like phone calls or letters, while others favor modern channels such as email, text messages, or patient portals. Catering to these preferences is crucial for:

  • Enhancing Patient Satisfaction: Personalized communication builds trust and strengthens the provider-patient relationship.
  • Improving Health Outcomes: Timely and tailored messages can encourage patients to follow treatment plans and attend appointments.
  • Ensuring Compliance: Adhering to regulations like HIPAA is easier when communication aligns with patient consent.


Providing transparency and enabling a two-way dialogue about communications, privacy, data use, and personalization can make all the difference between good versus great healthcare experiences. From ensuring patients receive crucial medical information to facilitating seamless interactions between healthcare providers and employer groups, managing communication preferences is a multifaceted challenge that requires careful consideration and strategic planning. 


Complexities of Healthcare Preference Centers 


Healthcare preference centers are central hubs for managing communication preferences and delivering personalized messaging to stakeholders. However, building and maintaining a robust preference center comes with its own set of complexities. Healthcare organizations must invest in sophisticated technology platforms capable of securely managing sensitive data, complying with privacy regulations, and integrating with existing systems and workflows. 


Consumers should be able to manage various channel preferences (e.g., email, SMS, mail) in different channels as well (e.g. over the phone, via email, through an online preference center). All these various channels and preferences need to talk to each other, making a centralized preference center crucial to manage updates accurately and effectively. 


Additionally, designing a user-friendly interface that allows stakeholders to easily update their communication preferences requires careful attention to usability and accessibility. Providing clear instructions, intuitive navigation, and options for customization ensures that stakeholders can effectively manage their preferences and receive relevant communications. 


Stakeholders to Consider When Designing a Preference Center 


When starting a preference center project, keep in mind the purpose of these preferences should be mutually beneficial between the customer/prospect and your organization. Here are common stakeholders to consider when designing: 


External Stakeholders


  1. Patients and members: Healthcare patients and members share unique communication preferences and may require tailored messaging based on their health status, demographics, and preferences. Providing consumers with the ability to customize their communication preferences empowers them to receive relevant information in their preferred format and frequency. 
  2. Employer groups: Employer groups play a significant role in healthcare communication, especially for employer-sponsored health plans. HR departments are responsible for disseminating important healthcare information to employees, such as benefits enrollment, wellness programs, and plan updates. Effective communication with employer groups and HR departments is essential for ensuring that employees have access to the information and resources they need to make informed healthcare decisions. 
  3. Providers: Clear and effective communication channels from hospitals and insurance companies to doctors are indispensable in navigating the intricacies of the healthcare system and ensuring optimal care for patients. Payers play a pivotal role in messaging providers and their staff to advocate for initiatives such as value-based care, convey updates on network changes, and facilitate contracts for new lines of business. It's essential for hospital networks to efficiently and transparently reach providers working within their system, delivering pertinent information to support the diverse needs of their patient population. Strong communication fosters collaboration, enhances decision-making, and ultimately elevates the quality of care delivered to patients. 


Internal Stakeholders


  1. Marketing:  To market to customers, marketing teams need consent for channels, like email, SMS, phone, mail, as well as for products or specific topics. When a preference center is optimized, your marketing team can gain effectiveness, improved legal compliance, more leads and better customer experience scores, while minimizing poorly targeted communications.
  2. Sales:  Sales teams often focus on consent for phone and email for product outreach. Accessing this data, without a centralized preference center, is difficult and frequently incomplete. Like marketing, your sales teams can gain call effectiveness and increased conversion rates with a well-designed preference center. 
  3. Customer service:  Customer service must also have consent for email, mail, phone, SMS, and certain web/portal activity. This applies not only to customer service-related activities, but to also marketing and sales preferences, as the customer service team is likely the first in line to address updates and requests regarding communications. The processes to collect and access this information can be complicated and challenging to train. By using a centralized preference center powered by your CRM, organizations can streamline and reduce the costs to communicate with customers. 

 

Tailored Communications Can Drive Improved Health Outcomes 


By implementing a centralized preference center and prioritizing effective communication strategies, healthcare organizations can enhance patient engagement, improve health outcomes, and drive positive behavior change. Tailoring communications to individual preferences and needs allows healthcare organizations to deliver targeted messaging that resonates with stakeholders, leading to increased satisfaction and engagement. 


Effective communication plays a crucial role in delivering high-quality healthcare and improving patient outcomes. Clear and timely communication between healthcare providers and patients fosters trust, enhances patient satisfaction, and promotes adherence to treatment plans. It also helps to prevent medical errors, reduce hospital readmissions, and streamline care coordination. 


For employer-sponsored healthcare plans, communication between healthcare organizations, employer groups, members, and HR departments is essential for efficiently managing benefits, addressing employee concerns, and promoting wellness initiatives. 


Complex, Yet Essential


Managing communication preferences in healthcare is a complex yet essential project on any healthcare organization’s CRM roadmap. By carefully considering the diverse needs of stakeholders, leveraging advanced technology solutions, and prioritizing effective communication strategies, healthcare organizations can foster meaningful connections, improve patient outcomes, and drive positive change in the healthcare landscape. 


Contact us to begin your evolution.

INSIGHTS

Trustworthy AI Starts With the Data You Can't See.

By Paul Benvenuto • July 31, 2026
PwC's April 2026 AI Performance Study surveyed 1,217 senior executives across 25 sectors and found something that should reframe how every regulated organization talks about AI investment: nearly three quarters of AI's economic value is being captured by just one fifth of organizations. Not because that top fifth has better models. PwC is specific about the differentiator: those organizations are 1.7 times more likely to have a Responsible AI framework and 1.5 times more likely to have a cross functional AI governance board. Their employees trust AI outputs at twice the rate of everyone else's. The value gap is structural, not a matter of who bought the better tool. That finding lands differently once you connect it to where trust actually comes from. It doesn't come from a more sophisticated model. It comes from knowing where your data originated, who touched it along the way, and what controls sat around it the entire time.  McKinsey's June 2026 research on AI data readiness makes the case that most organizations manage data like a storage problem when they should be managing it like a supply chain. A single PDF can expand into extracted text, tables, images, metadata, sensitivity tags, and quality scores, each one an intermediate artifact that AI systems reuse and recombine downstream. A small error introduced upstream doesn't stay small. It propagates. This matters more in regulated industries than almost anywhere else, because the data causing the most exposure is usually the data getting the least attention. Structured fields get governed. Clinical notes, claim narratives, loan officer comments, and audit trails, the unstructured stuff, usually don't, even though AI systems depend on it heavily. Gartner and IDC both put the share of enterprise data that is unstructured at somewhere around 80 to 90 percent. McKinsey's own research doesn't cite that specific figure, but makes the same underlying point: unstructured content is where AI systems draw the most context, and where governance attention is thinnest. None of this is an argument for waiting until your data is perfect before you deploy anything. PwC's 2026 Digital Trends in Operations Survey argues directly against that instinct: AI can help bridge data gaps, particularly through agents that reason using whatever data is actually available. The real mandate isn't clean data as a prerequisite. It's disciplined governance and iterative improvement running in parallel with deployment, calibrated to how much risk a given use case actually carries. So what does that look like in practice for a CIO or CDO sitting inside a regulated organization right now? A few diagnostic questions worth asking before your next AI initiative launches: Where does data quality actually break down in your pipeline, and does anyone own fixing it? Is lineage visible for the data feeding your highest risk AI use cases, or is it assumed? Where do unstructured assets, like clinical notes, policy documents, and loan files, enter your systems without any governance attached? Have you defined what "good enough" data quality means for each use case, calibrated to its actual risk profile, rather than applying one standard everywhere? Answering those honestly is uncomfortable in most organizations, because the answer is usually "we don't fully know." That's the point. You cannot govern what you cannot see, and you cannot trust an AI output built on a data foundation nobody has actually traced. The organizations in PwC's top 20 percent didn't get there by waiting for perfect data or by buying a better model. They got there by treating governance as a financial performance variable, not a compliance checkbox, and by building the lineage and controls that make trust possible at scale. Kona Kai's data supply chain assessment is built to answer exactly these questions before tool selection, not after. If you're not certain where your organization would land on that list, that uncertainty is worth resolving now. Get in touch to talk through what the assessment covers. Sources: PwC 2026 AI Performance Study, April 13, 2026 (74%/20% figure and 1.7x/1.5x/2x multipliers confirmed directly at pwc.com); McKinsey, AI Data Readiness: The Key to Scaling Impact, June 2026; Gartner and IDC estimates for the 80-90% unstructured data share; PwC 2026 Digital Trends in Operations Survey.

Agentic AI Changes the Job. Your Workflows Haven't Caught Up.

By Paul Benvenuto • July 29, 2026
Every governance and workflow framework most organizations are running today was built for AI that waits for a human to ask it something. Agentic AI doesn't wait. It initiates, executes, and chains actions across systems on its own, and the workflows built around human initiated, human reviewed steps simply don't have

AI Literacy Isn't Training. It's an Operating Model.

By Paul Benvenuto • July 27, 2026
Education was the number one way companies say they adjusted their talent strategy in response to AI. And yet most organizations still treat training as an event. A workshop. A certificate. A box that gets checked once and never revisited.

Policies Don't Create Governance. Enforcement Does.

By Paul Benvenuto • July 20, 2026
Most organizations think they have AI governance because someone in legal drafted a policy and got it signed off. They don't. A policy sitting in a shared drive doesn't know where your AI is actually running. It doesn't flag it when a model drifts. It doesn't do a single thing when an employee routes a client file thro

The Four Pillars of AI Success: Governance, People, Data, and Process

By Paul Benvenuto • July 20, 2026
Governance, people, data, and process are not sequential steps. They are four load-bearing walls, and in regulated industries, a crack in any one of them shows up as risk somewhere else. Here is where each pillar actually breaks down today, and what the data says about the gap between where most organizations sit and w

Why Regulated Industries May Have an Unexpected AI Advantage

By Carly Whitte • July 1, 2026
AI success depends on more than technology. Governance, regulation, and operational oversight are helping organizations turn AI pilots into scalable business capabilities.

The Missing Ingredient in Healthcare AI Adoption: Accountability

By Carly Whitte • June 27, 2026
Healthcare AI adoption depends on more than technology. Governance, accountability, and AI readiness determine whether AI delivers measurable business value.

The Hidden Enterprise Risk Behind “Vibe Coding”

By Carly Whitte • May 24, 2026
AI-powered “vibe coding” is accelerating enterprise software creation, but governance and security controls are struggling to keep pace. Learn the hidden risks of AI-generated applications and why responsible AI governance is critical for scalable enterprise adoption.

Rethinking AI Skepticism in Healthcare Governance

By Carly Whitte • May 6, 2026
Why does AI adoption stall in healthcare? Discover how accountability, governance, and risk management influence success beyond change management.

When Change Management Isn’t Enough for Healthcare AI Adoption

By Carly Whitte • April 28, 2026
AI adoption in healthcare often stalls due to unclear accountability, not resistance. Learn how governance design, risk management, and liability structures impact successful implementation.