Clinical information systems and healthcare patient portals are proving to be a significant waste of money. Millions of dollars are invested into developing and maintaining these platforms, often by third-party vendors, to provide patients with online access to their medical records. While the idea behind these portals is great in theory, the execution falls flat when healthcare providers continue to send massive amounts of paper copies through the mail, despite the digital system. This redundancy is both financially wasteful and environmentally harmful, especially when patients like me would prefer a paperless option.

Even more frustrating is that at my current health insurance company, I can’t even opt out of receiving paper copies. Despite several attempts to request this, I’m told there’s no way to stop the influx of mail. Now, I’m left with no choice but to purchase a $70 paper shredder just to deal with the overwhelming amount of unnecessary paperwork I receive. It feels like an outdated system where healthcare organizations are not fully committed to leveraging the digital tools they’ve invested in.

To make matters worse, the US Postal Service bears the burden of delivering all these unnecessary documents. This means taxpayers and other users of the postal system are indirectly subsidizing this inefficiency. It’s absurd that after all the time and money spent on developing patient portals, they’re not serving their purpose if the same information is just going to be mailed out anyway. It’s a huge missed opportunity for cost savings and sustainability.

For anyone curious about which platforms I’m talking about, my chart, Healow. These are the two that I have used. I’m sure there are many others, but Blue Cross is also part of the problem, they have their own custom proprietary software that you can log in and see your bill and all that stuff but they will still send you the crap in the mail. And cannot get them to stop

  • grudan@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I’m taking a stance against these platforms by always declining to ever create an account on them when the doctor’s office asks. Having medical data accessible like this is just asking for an attack, followed by a leak. And then I can only assume insurance companies buy these leaked databases and adjust rates accordingly.

    • Buttflapper@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I think you misunderstand. I have no issue with the platform, if the platform is a complete end-to-end replacement that consumers can use. But that’s not the case. They want you to use the platform, and they’re going to send you pounds of paper in the mail. I don’t want both. It should be either or! If I sign up for my chart, put everything in there. Send me emails. Why are you going to make me sign up for my chart, and now you’re going to send me a statement every single week or month? Wtf? I need both?

    • edric@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I’m talking out of my ass, but your data is likely still there whether you choose to create an account or not; so you’re still susceptible to data breaches either way.

        • d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          If the doctor uses mychart, thats where they store the internal data whether you have an account or not. Its their entire computer system most of the time.

          • grudan@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            28 minutes ago

            Yeah, a couple people are saying that, but I can’t find any information on how it’s implemented for providers. Regardless, not having an account is one less avenue for my information to be leaked. I do worry more about the doctor’s security practices (2FA, password complexity, password rotation, etc…) than my own.

        • LilB0kChoy@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          33 minutes ago

          released to companies like mychart

          What does this mean? MyChart is a software solution used by many medical providers. They don’t “release” medical information to them.

          This would be like thinking someone using Office on their computer is “releasing” documents they create to Microsoft.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Imagine a single payer world where our medical information being shared had no monetary impact.

      Yeah, people can do other malicious things, but there wouldn’t a financial incentive for the companies or agencies that have access to it.

      • grudan@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Some things can be potentially embarrassing so your information could still be used against you by cyber gangs for money, so even though it’s no monetary impact for companies, the information still has a value.

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        So forcing everyone to use a single system, where everything about them can be known.

        And we know how “secure” these systems aren’t.

        Dont be naive.