For an older Indonesian living with several long-term conditions, the value of digital technology is not measured by how many applications exist. It is measured by whether a Puskesmas can see relevant information after a hospital visit, whether a family caregiver can obtain advice without making an unnecessary journey, whether deterioration can be recognized earlier, and whether technology helps the person remain independent rather than creating another barrier to care.
Indonesia is undertaking a substantial digital transformation of its health system while simultaneously entering a much more significant phase of population aging. Those two transitions create an important opportunity. As explored across the Indonesia Aging, Long-Term Care & Community Support Knowledge Hub, future support will increasingly need to connect health care, functional support, families, communities and emerging long-term care infrastructure. Digital technology could help create those connections, particularly across a country whose population is dispersed across thousands of islands.
But digitalization and digitally enabled care are not the same thing. Electronic records can improve information flow without providing a home visit. Teleconsultation can extend professional reach without helping somebody who cannot use a smartphone. Artificial intelligence can identify patterns without understanding an older person’s preferences. Indonesia’s stronger opportunity therefore lies in combining digital infrastructure with Puskesmas, Posyandu, community workers, families and professional services. Technology should extend human capability and continuity rather than become a substitute for them.
Indonesia’s Aging Transition Is Also a Digital-System Challenge
Indonesia’s demographic trajectory makes the question increasingly consequential. The 2025 Intercensal Population Survey reported that people aged 60 and over represented 11.97 percent of the population. Other official planning estimates use slightly different demographic bases, but the direction is consistent: the share of older Indonesians will rise substantially over the coming decades.
This matters digitally because older populations interact with health and support systems differently from younger populations. A person living with diabetes, hypertension, arthritis and early cognitive impairment may encounter primary care, hospital services, pharmacy, rehabilitation and community support simultaneously. The more complex the pathway, the greater the cost of fragmented information.
Long-term care adds another dimension. Indonesia does not yet have a single comprehensive national long-term care entitlement comparable with dedicated insurance systems found in some countries. Much everyday support continues to be provided by families, with community-based models developing alongside health and social welfare services. Digital infrastructure designed principally around clinical encounters will therefore not automatically create an integrated aging-support system.
The design question is broader: what information and digital capability are needed to help an older person live safely and independently between clinical encounters?
That may include functional ability, medication, rehabilitation goals, caregiver circumstances, social support, assistive products and changes in everyday capability. Some of these data belong appropriately within health records; others may sit with different services or should not be shared widely at all. Integration therefore requires governance as much as technology.
SATUSEHAT Creates an Important National Foundation
Indonesia’s most significant digital-health infrastructure is SATUSEHAT, the Ministry of Health’s national health-data ecosystem. It is designed to improve standardization and interoperability between health information systems, connecting actors including hospitals, Puskesmas, laboratories, pharmacies and other health facilities.
The underlying problem is familiar internationally: information historically accumulated in separate systems, applications and organizations, making continuity difficult when a patient moved between services. SATUSEHAT is intended to establish common mechanisms for exchanging health information rather than requiring each facility to operate as an isolated data environment.
The Ministry of Health’s September 2026 launch of SATUSEHAT Rekam Medis Elektronik, or electronic medical records, further develops that direction. The stated model is person-based rather than facility-based: relevant medical information can follow the individual across participating health facilities, subject to professional authority and patient consent.
For older people, this could be particularly valuable. A person who moves between Puskesmas, specialist outpatient care, hospital and pharmacy should not have to reconstruct a complex medical history at every transition. Better information continuity can support medication reconciliation, chronic-disease management and safer follow-up.
Yet an interoperable clinical record is an infrastructure layer, not a complete care model.
Whether it improves outcomes depends on what information is captured, whether it is current, who can access it, whether professionals use it during decisions and what happens when the information identifies a need outside the health system.
An older person may have an excellent electronic record showing that their diabetes is unstable while the actual cause is that worsening mobility prevents them from obtaining food, medication or attending appointments. Digital health becomes more valuable when the service pathway can interpret the person behind the data.
A hospital discharge becomes a connected recovery pathway
A 74-year-old woman in West Java is admitted after an infection exacerbates diabetes and causes significant deconditioning. Her medication is adjusted in hospital. She is medically stable at discharge but now walks much less confidently than before admission.
In a fragmented pathway, her family might return to the local Puskesmas carrying paper information and trying to explain what changed. Medication reconciliation, rehabilitation needs and follow-up could depend heavily on how effectively the family communicates the discharge episode.
A stronger digitally connected pathway allows authorized primary-care professionals to see relevant clinical information from the hospital. But the operational value begins only after somebody acts on it. The Puskesmas needs to recognize that the woman’s functional decline matters alongside her blood glucose, determine whether she can attend follow-up, and connect her with rehabilitation or appropriate community support.
If she repeatedly misses appointments, the digital system should not simply classify her as non-attending. The service needs to establish whether transport, mobility, caregiver availability or digital communication is the real barrier.
Technology has improved continuity not because a record became electronic, but because information enabled a different response.
Digital Integration Should Follow the Older Person, Not the Organization
The long-term opportunity is to organize information around a person’s pathway rather than the institutions they happen to encounter.
This aligns well with Indonesia’s Integrated Primary Care reform, or Integrasi Pelayanan Kesehatan Primer. ILP is shifting primary care toward a life-course model and strengthening relationships between Puskesmas, Pustu, Posyandu and community-level services. Digital systems can support that architecture by helping information move across levels and making population needs more visible.
For aging support, a useful digital picture may eventually need to connect several domains:
- clinical diagnoses, treatment and medication;
- functional ability, mobility and rehabilitation;
- screening and preventive interventions;
- referrals and whether they were completed;
- caregiver availability and relevant support needs;
- assistive products or essential equipment; and
- changes that require reassessment rather than routine follow-up.
Not every participant needs access to every item. A community cadre does not need unrestricted access to an older person’s medical record, and a technology supplier should not acquire sensitive information merely because its product forms part of the pathway.
Interoperability therefore has two dimensions: making necessary information available and preventing unnecessary access.
Organizations considering comparable transformations can use the Digital Transformation, AI and Cybersecurity Readiness Assessment to structure questions about infrastructure, information governance, workforce capability, accessibility and cyber risk. It is not an Indonesian regulatory instrument, but it illustrates why digital readiness should be assessed as an operating model rather than simply as software procurement.
Telehealth Can Extend Reach Without Eliminating Distance
Indonesia’s geography gives remote consultation an obvious potential role. Specialist expertise is unevenly distributed, while many older people face significant travel burdens even when health services technically exist.
Telehealth can allow a local professional to obtain specialist advice, support follow-up after hospital treatment, review stable conditions or help a family caregiver access guidance. It can be particularly useful when the alternative is a long journey for a relatively short consultation.
Its strongest role may therefore be professional-to-professional as well as professional-to-patient.
An older person in a remote district does not necessarily need to become a sophisticated digital-health consumer. A nurse or other appropriate local professional may facilitate a consultation, gather observations, help the person communicate and implement the resulting plan locally.
This mediated model can reduce some digital exclusion while retaining local clinical responsibility.
But telehealth does not abolish geography. A video consultation cannot perform every physical examination, provide hands-on rehabilitation, install an assistive product or respond to an emergency. Poor connectivity can interrupt care. Hearing or visual impairment can make remote communication difficult. Dementia may affect how a person interacts with an unfamiliar clinician on a screen.
The operational question should therefore be whether remote technology is appropriate for the particular decision, not whether a service can technically be delivered online.
Specialist reach extends to an island without making the island virtual
A 77-year-old man living on a smaller island develops increasing breathlessness after a recent hospital admission. His family is concerned but uncertain whether another journey to a referral hospital is necessary.
A local health professional assesses him in person, records vital observations and uses an established remote consultation route to obtain specialist input. The specialist can review relevant information and advise whether treatment can safely continue locally or whether transfer is required.
The technology reduces diagnostic distance, but the local pathway remains essential. Someone must examine the patient, identify deterioration, administer available treatment, arrange transport if escalation is required and ensure that the family understands what to monitor.
If the same patient repeatedly requires remote escalation because necessary local capability is absent, governance should not simply count successful teleconsultations. The pattern may indicate a workforce, medication, equipment or referral-capacity gap.
Digital access therefore creates new evidence about physical service design. Used well, it can show where specialist travel is avoidable and where local capability still needs investment.
Technology Can Support Aging in Place Beyond Clinical Care
The most important technologies for aging may not always look like health technology.
An older person can remain independent because they can communicate with family, arrange transport, obtain information, manage money, request help or use a simple device that compensates for declining function. Digital inclusion therefore intersects with aging in place far beyond formal clinical systems.
Assistive and monitoring technologies could increasingly support mobility, medication routines, communication, hearing, vision and home safety. Simple reminder systems may help some people manage treatment. Location or alert technology may support particular people with cognitive impairment when used proportionately. Remote monitoring may help clinicians follow selected physiological measures.
The central principle is that technology should solve an identified problem.
Installing more sensors does not automatically produce safer care. Monitoring can generate false alarms, create excessive workload or produce data that nobody is responsible for reviewing. A device may work technically while the person dislikes wearing it. An application may be useful until eyesight deteriorates or a family member who configured it moves away.
Good technology-enabled care therefore starts with the person’s goals and the operational response.
If a device generates an alert, who receives it? What threshold triggers action? What happens at night? What if connectivity fails? How is consent managed? Who maintains the equipment? How is effectiveness reviewed?
Without answers to those questions, technology adds components without creating a service.
Digital Exclusion Is a Care-Quality Issue
Indonesia’s growing digital economy should not create an assumption that every older person can or wants to use digital services independently.
Older populations are heterogeneous. Some people use smartphones, messaging, digital payments and applications confidently. Others have limited digital experience, literacy barriers, sensory impairment, cognitive impairment, limited connectivity or difficulty affording devices and data. Digital capability also varies by geography, education and socioeconomic circumstances.
The Indonesia Longitudinal Aging Survey specifically examines technology, applications, financial inclusion and information access among current and future older cohorts, reflecting how closely digital participation is becoming connected with later-life wellbeing.
A digitally enabled aging system therefore needs alternatives by design.
A person should not lose meaningful access to health care because they cannot operate an application. Appointment information may need to remain available through non-digital channels. A family member may assist with technology, but services should not automatically assume that the family member has authority to receive all information or make decisions.
Accessibility also requires more than larger text. Interfaces need to consider contrast, navigation complexity, language, hearing, dexterity and cognitive load. Repeated passwords and authentication steps may protect security while making systems practically unusable for some people.
The challenge is not to choose between security and accessibility. It is to design both intelligently.
A digital appointment system unintentionally removes access
A 71-year-old widower in an urban area owns a basic smartphone and uses messaging to communicate with his children. After a service introduces more digital appointment and information functions, his family assumes he will manage because he already uses a phone.
In practice, he struggles with application navigation and authentication. He misses a follow-up after believing an automated notification is promotional content. Staff initially record the event as a routine missed appointment.
A conversation at his next Puskesmas contact reveals that the barrier is not unwillingness to engage with care. The digital pathway exceeds his functional digital capability.
The response is modest: his communication preference is recorded, critical appointments are confirmed through an accessible alternative channel, and his daughter helps only with information he has agreed she can receive. He remains able to use digital services where they genuinely help him.
At system level, repeated missed appointments associated with the same digital process should trigger review. If technology systematically reduces access for older people with lower digital literacy, that is not merely a user-training problem. It is a quality and equity problem in the service design.
Families Can Be Digital Partners Without Becoming Unregulated Gatekeepers
Family members will often mediate digital care for older Indonesians. They may book appointments, communicate with services, operate devices, monitor results or help navigate electronic information.
This can be extremely valuable, particularly where a caregiver already coordinates complex care.
But family involvement creates governance questions. The person helping with an application should not automatically gain unrestricted access to the older person’s medical information. A relative knowing a password is not the same as formal consent to manage every aspect of care.
Digital design should allow appropriate delegation rather than forcing a choice between complete independence and complete family control.
This becomes especially important for dementia. A person may be able to make some decisions and use some functions while needing support with others. Digital systems that recognize only a single account holder can encourage informal workarounds such as password sharing, which weakens both privacy and accountability.
Future aging-oriented digital services should therefore consider how trusted supporters can assist transparently, with permissions appropriate to the task and capable of being reviewed when circumstances change.
The principle extends beyond health care. Digital banking, social assistance and other online services increasingly shape independence in later life. Technology can empower an older person, but poorly governed dependency on somebody else’s device or account can also increase vulnerability to financial control or exploitation.
Digital Technology Should Reduce Caregiver Burden, Not Transfer More Work to Families
There is a risk that digital transformation appears efficient to organizations because administrative work has quietly moved into the household.
A family caregiver may be expected to install applications, enter observations, upload information, coordinate virtual consultations, troubleshoot devices and respond to alerts. Each individual task may appear small. Together they can create substantial invisible labor.
This is particularly relevant in Indonesia because families already provide much of the practical support required by older people.
Technology should therefore be evaluated partly through its effect on caregiver workload.
A well-designed system might remove repeated travel, reduce the need to retell a medical history, make professional advice easier to obtain or automate genuinely routine administration. A poorly designed one can add another set of tasks to an already overloaded daughter or spouse.
The distinction should be visible in evaluation. Asking whether a digital service was used is not enough. Services need to understand who actually operated it, how much time it required and whether it reduced or increased coordination burden.
Digitalization Changes the Workforce Rather Than Replacing It
Technology is sometimes framed as a response to workforce shortages. In aging services, that framing needs caution.
Indonesia will require more capability to support a larger older population, including primary-care professionals, rehabilitation expertise, social support, long-term care workers and people able to coordinate increasingly complex pathways. Digital technology can increase the reach and productivity of some of that workforce, but it does not remove the underlying need for human care.
Instead, roles change.
Professionals need competence in remote assessment, electronic documentation, information governance and interpreting data from monitoring technologies. Community workers need to understand what information they should collect and what remains outside their role. Managers need to recognize digital service failures alongside conventional operational risks.
New roles may also become more important around data quality, interoperability, cyber security, equipment support and digital inclusion.
There is a productivity opportunity. A specialist who can advise several local teams remotely may extend expertise farther than one who must travel to every location. Automated administrative processes may release professional time. Better records may reduce duplicate assessments.
But poorly implemented technology can do the opposite. Duplicate systems, excessive data entry, unreliable connectivity and poorly targeted alerts can consume workforce capacity.
Digital productivity should therefore be measured in usable professional time and better outcomes, not simply in the number of processes moved online.
Data Quality Determines Whether Digital Intelligence Is Useful
Connected data create the possibility of much stronger population intelligence.
Local health authorities could better understand where older populations are concentrated, which chronic conditions frequently coexist, where screening is incomplete, whether referrals are completed and which communities experience repeated access problems. Over time, functional and social information could strengthen planning if collected appropriately.
But a sophisticated dashboard cannot compensate for weak underlying data.
If functional decline is recorded inconsistently, it cannot reliably support risk identification. If referral completion is unknown, a digital referral count can exaggerate effective access. If some remote communities contribute less data because connectivity is poorer, apparent population need may be distorted.
Digital transformation therefore requires disciplined attention to completeness, definitions and missingness.
Organizations working with complex performance information can use the Quality Dashboard Builder to structure the relationship between measures, thresholds, trends and governance review. The broader lesson for Indonesia is that dashboards become useful only when decision-makers understand what each measure can and cannot demonstrate.
Artificial Intelligence Has Potential, but the Near-Term Value Is Specific
Artificial intelligence will increasingly influence health and care internationally, and Indonesia’s growing digital-health infrastructure could create future opportunities. The strongest near-term use cases are likely to be specific rather than futuristic.
AI-supported tools may help summarize records, identify patterns requiring professional attention, support administrative workflows, assist population analysis or improve scheduling and resource planning. Predictive approaches may eventually help identify people at higher risk of hospitalization, falls or deterioration.
However, aging introduces important safeguards.
Older people with multiple conditions are clinically heterogeneous. Historical data can encode inequalities in who accessed care. Functional, family and social factors may be poorly represented in clinical datasets. An algorithm trained principally on health-service activity may interpret frequent service use as high need while missing an isolated person who rarely reaches services at all.
AI outputs should therefore support rather than replace accountable professional judgment.
The need for explainability becomes greater when an algorithm influences who receives proactive intervention, which risks are escalated or how scarce resources are prioritized. Local governance should be able to understand what the model is designed to predict, what data it uses, how performance varies across groups and what happens when it is wrong.
Innovation is valuable when it creates a safer decision. Novelty alone is not an outcome.
Privacy and Cybersecurity Become Part of Care Safety
As more information becomes connected, the consequences of weak information governance increase.
Older people’s records may contain diagnoses, medication, cognitive status, disability, contact information and other highly sensitive details. Future community-care systems could add information about home circumstances, caregiver relationships and functional dependency.
Indonesia’s digital-health infrastructure therefore has to balance interoperability with controlled access.
The Ministry of Health’s SATUSEHAT architecture explicitly addresses standardized and secure information exchange, while electronic medical-record requirements create formal responsibilities for health facilities. But operational security still depends on implementation: account management, device security, staff behavior, authentication, system suppliers and response to incidents.
Aging services introduce additional vulnerabilities because technology may be used in homes rather than controlled clinical environments. Devices can be lost, family members may share phones, passwords may be written down for practical reasons, and people may require assistance to access information.
Privacy-by-design should therefore reflect real life rather than assuming ideal digital behavior.
Cybersecurity also becomes continuity-of-care infrastructure. If a digital system becomes unavailable, professionals still need a safe way to provide essential care. Services that become entirely dependent on connectivity without workable fallback arrangements can create new operational risk.
Local Government Needs to Govern Digital Outcomes, Not Technology Counts
Indonesia’s decentralization means that digital transformation will interact with substantial local variation.
National platforms can establish common infrastructure and standards, but provincial and kabupaten/kota systems still operate within different geographies, workforce profiles, service networks and levels of organizational capability.
Local governance should therefore ask what digitalization changes for residents.
Counting connected facilities, electronic records or teleconsultations can show implementation activity. It does not demonstrate that older people receive better care.
More useful questions include whether information reaches the next service in time to influence decisions, whether digital access reduces unnecessary travel, whether older people with lower digital literacy retain access, whether referrals are completed, and whether professionals spend less or more time navigating systems.
This creates a different accountability model. Digital programs become part of service quality rather than separate information-technology projects.
A city discovers that high digital adoption is hiding unequal access
A kota health team reviews a successful expansion of digital appointment and follow-up processes. Overall usage is high and administrative processing has become faster.
When the data are examined by age and neighborhood, however, a different pattern appears. Older residents in several lower-income areas are much less likely to complete digital follow-up. Some continue attending in person, while others disappear from routine monitoring altogether.
The city does not abandon digitalization. It redesigns access.
Puskesmas retain alternative communication routes for people who need them. Community contacts help identify older residents whose access has deteriorated. Digital-support assistance is offered without making it a condition of receiving care. Performance monitoring separates voluntary in-person use from people who have effectively become disconnected.
Six months later, leaders review not simply digital uptake but continuity of follow-up across age groups and neighborhoods.
The intervention illustrates an important governance principle: equity cannot be inferred from aggregate adoption. A digital service can become more efficient overall while becoming less accessible to a particular population.
Innovation Needs Evidence Before Scale
Indonesia’s size makes technology pilots attractive. A new remote-care model can be tested in a district or city before wider implementation. But scale should depend on more than technical success.
A device or application may work well in a supported pilot because equipment is new, staff receive intensive training and project teams solve problems quickly. Those conditions may change when the model expands.
Evaluation should therefore examine whether the technology remains useful under ordinary operating conditions.
Important evidence includes whether people actually use it, whether outcomes improve, whether workforce time changes, whether caregivers experience additional burden, whether the system remains reliable, and what the full operating cost becomes after implementation support ends.
Different Indonesian settings may also produce different results. A remote island community, dense urban neighborhood and well-connected provincial capital do not have identical digital infrastructure or workforce capacity.
Scaling should preserve the function that produced value rather than insist on identical delivery everywhere.
The Community Impact Report Builder offers one way for organizations examining comparable innovations to connect activity with outcomes, lived experience and community evidence. The relevant principle is to establish whether technology changes people’s lives and service performance, not merely whether deployment targets were achieved.
Digital Long-Term Care Needs a Clearer Information Architecture
As Indonesia develops more structured community-based long-term care, an important question will be how far its digital architecture should extend beyond conventional health information.
Long-term care depends heavily on function. Whether somebody can wash, dress, eat, move around the home, manage medication or participate in community life may matter more to everyday independence than a diagnostic code alone.
Care planning may also involve family capacity, home environment, rehabilitation, social protection and community services.
Trying to place all of this information inside a single medical record would not necessarily be appropriate. Different systems have different purposes, legal bases and users.
The stronger goal is interoperable coordination where justified: agreed identifiers, structured referrals, clear consent and information-sharing rules, and the ability to know whether another part of the pathway has responded.
This distinction is important. Integration does not require universal visibility.
A social support service may need to know that an older person has mobility limitations without receiving their complete clinical history. A clinician may need to know that home support has broken down without accessing unrelated welfare information.
Indonesia can therefore build on the interoperability principles emerging through health transformation while designing information governance appropriate to a broader care economy.
Technology Should Strengthen Prevention, Not Only Respond to Illness
The most valuable digital aging system would help Indonesia intervene before dependency or crisis becomes severe.
Primary-care data can support identification of people who have missed screening or require chronic-disease follow-up. Changes in function could trigger rehabilitation or assessment. Repeated falls, emergency visits or missed appointments could prompt a broader review rather than remaining isolated events.
At population level, local leaders could combine demographic and service information to anticipate where aging-related demand will grow.
This is especially important because Indonesia’s aging transition is occurring while long-term care infrastructure is still developing. Data can help the country plan rather than wait for visible demand to overwhelm existing family and health systems.
Preventive analytics should nevertheless avoid treating older people as collections of predicted risks. A model may identify somebody as likely to fall or require hospital care, but intervention still needs to be acceptable, proportionate and connected to a service capable of helping.
Prediction without response capacity simply creates a more sophisticated description of unmet need.
The Future Is Hybrid, Not Digital-Only
Indonesia’s strongest technology-enabled aging model is likely to be hybrid.
Digital infrastructure can connect information. Remote consultation can extend specialist reach. Assistive technology can support independence. Data can improve planning. Artificial intelligence may increasingly help professionals identify patterns and reduce administrative burden.
But aging also involves touch, observation, relationships, physical environments and human judgment.
A rehabilitation professional needs to see how somebody moves. A caregiver sometimes needs reassurance from another person rather than another notification. A cadre may notice loneliness that no clinical dataset records. An older person with dementia may communicate distress through behavior rather than an application.
The future workforce therefore becomes technologically augmented rather than digitally replaced.
This has important financing implications. Investment should not flow only toward platforms and devices. Implementation also requires workforce training, connectivity, maintenance, accessibility, information governance and physical services able to respond to digitally identified need.
A balanced investment model asks what combination of people, technology and community infrastructure produces the strongest outcome.
International Learning: Digitize Continuity Before Digitizing Everything
Indonesia’s experience offers a useful international lesson because it is developing digital-health infrastructure while its long-term care architecture is still evolving.
Countries sometimes begin digital transformation by asking which services can be moved online. A more productive question is where fragmentation currently causes harm or unnecessary work.
The transferable principle is to digitize continuity.
That can mean making relevant information available across transitions, allowing expertise to travel when people do not need to, ensuring referrals are closed rather than merely sent, and using data to identify populations whose needs are changing.
Another lesson is that digital inclusion must be treated as part of service design. Maintaining a non-digital route is not resistance to innovation when some users cannot safely use the digital route. It is an accessibility control.
Finally, countries should resist evaluating transformation through adoption alone. A platform can reach millions of users while still leaving the people with the greatest care needs least able to benefit. The meaningful measures are continuity, access, safety, independence, workforce capacity and outcomes.
Conclusion
Digital technology could become an important part of Indonesia’s response to population aging, particularly because the country must support a rapidly growing older population across highly varied geographic, economic and service environments. SATUSEHAT and the wider digital-health transformation provide an increasingly significant national foundation for interoperable information, while telehealth, assistive technology, remote monitoring and future analytical tools could extend community capability further.
The central challenge is to ensure that digitalization strengthens care rather than merely changing its interface. Older people need continuity across hospitals, Puskesmas, community services and families; professionals need information they can act upon; and local leaders need evidence that reveals unmet need rather than simply measuring digital activity. People who cannot use digital services independently must remain fully included.
Indonesia’s opportunity is therefore larger than building an aging application or expanding remote consultations. It can progressively develop a hybrid care infrastructure in which national digital systems support local human relationships, specialist expertise travels farther, information follows the person, caregivers carry less coordination burden and emerging needs become visible earlier.
If that architecture develops alongside community-based long-term care, technology can help Indonesia scale support without assuming that every solution requires another institution or another journey. The strongest digital future for aging will not be one in which care becomes less human. It will be one in which technology allows scarce human capability to reach older people more intelligently, consistently and equitably.