Digital by Default - 85% of Americans Have Online Health Insurance Accounts

Executive Summary

Flexpa’s independent research of a nationally representative, un-moderated online survey of 5,602 U.S. adults, 5,550 of whom were insured, reveals that the majority of insured Americans already interact with their health insurers online. 85.5% of all insured respondents reported having created an online account with their health insurer, indicating that the vast majority of users are already digitally engaged and consumers’ inability or unwillingness to use online health plan accounts are largely overstated.

This high adoption spans across employer-sponsored plans, individual (ACA) plans, Medicare, Medicaid, and military/veterans plans.

Furthermore, many consumers express a willingness to share their health data with third-party digital health apps under the right conditions – especially if they trust the application and see personal or broader benefits. While some users do express concerns (primarily around privacy and security), these can be mitigated through clear communication, robust security measures, and user-centric design.

We hear three common concerns to completing standard OAuth-style consent flows such as Flexpa. We conducted this study to gain an objective understanding of the present day perspective of health insurance digital account creation and data sharing preferences.

1. Users don’t know their health plan name (or confuse it with providers/EHRs).
   Finding: Nearly all respondents could identify their health insurance company by name, suggesting that consumers generally do know their payers. We acknowledge that confusion still does exist (e.g. mixing up an insurer vs. a provider network) but are confident they can be overcome with guidance. Flexpa certainly has room for improvement in reducing dropoff here and will continue to double down on efforts to minimize preventable dropoff. See more in the Conclusions section. Existing solutions include prompting users to refer to their insurance card for the plan name, using a searchable list with recognizable logos and alternate names, and providing custom workflows for known issues like the “Blue Cross Blue Shield” ecosystem.

2. Users don’t have online accounts with their health plan.
   Finding: Over eight in ten insured individuals (85.5%) have an online member portal account with their health plan. This holds true even for historically less tech-engaged demographics – for instance, 87.60% of Medicare beneficiaries in our sample had online accounts. Employer-plan members and ACA individual plan holders showed even higher adoption with 91.1%. The table below illustrates the survey’s findings by plan type segment, demonstrating that account creation is common across all lines of business. Users who haven’t yet signed up represent a minority, and they can be prompted to do so (a straightforward step most are willing to take to access valuable services). Of the 14.5% of respondents who did not already have an online account, 100% said they’d be willing to create one.

3. Users don’t know or remember their usernames/passwords.
   Finding: Although our survey did not directly ask users about password recall, evidence from both our usage and industry trends suggests this friction is manageable. Flexpa collects structured feedback when a user abandons a connection attempt, and in the past 6 months, only 8.38% of them have been due to forgotten or incorrect credentials. Additionally, the fact that 85.50% of insured Americans have an account in the first place implies they have, at some point, set up credentials. It’s well-documented that consumers today juggle dozens of online accounts – the average person has over 100 passwords on record – yet they routinely find ways to manage (through browsers, password managers, or reset links). In analogous domains like online banking, 85% of U.S. adults bank online, often requiring credential entry. Moreover, leading fintech APIs like Plaid have shown that roughly one-third of U.S. bank customers have connected their accounts to apps via Plaid, despite needing to recall login information. In short, entering credentials is a familiar task for many users. For those who do forget, most health plan sites offer quick username/password recovery. The inconvenience is real but usually momentary; it has not been a fundamental barrier in finance and is unlikely to be one in healthcare, especially as users increasingly expect digital connectivity.

Our research indicates that users are more ready for digital health data sharing than some stakeholders assume. Concerns that users “don’t know their plan,” “don’t have accounts,” or “won’t remember credentials” are, on population level, less severe than often presumed. Where friction does occur, it is concentrated in specific user groups or use‑cases rather than the mainstream. Most know their insurer, most have online accounts, and many are amenable to linking them.

The key to success is addressing the edge cases: guiding the few who are unsure of their plan, assisting those without accounts to create them, and reassuring users who are anxious about data privacy. Flexpa helps our customers overcome these hurdles with user-centric design and education.

What is Flexpa?

Flexpa is a health data platform that enables individuals to securely access and share their health insurance claims data. Through a single integration, Flexpa connects to 350+ U.S. health plans, covering Medicare, Medicaid, ACA marketplace, employer-sponsored, and veteran plans. The core product, often accessed via Flexpa Link, is an embeddable consent flow where a user selects their health plan, logs in with their plan’s member credentials, and authorizes the release of their claims data. Once connected, Flexpa’s API provides the requesting application (e.g. a digital health app, personal health record, care coordination tool, etc.) with the user’s claims and coverage data in a standardized format.

This approach is analogous to financial data aggregators in fintech: much like how Plaid or Finicity allow consumers to link their bank accounts to fintech apps, Flexpa allows patients to link their health insurance accounts to health applications. The emphasis is on patient-consented data access – the individual is in control, choosing when and with whom to share their records. Flexpa’s value proposition to third-party developers and healthcare companies is a dramatic reduction in integration complexity: instead of building custom connections to each insurer or relying on manual record collection, developers can use Flexpa’s unified API to get claims data in seconds once the patient has given permission.

Research Methodology

Survey design & deployment: Flexpa conducted an unmoderated online survey targeting a broad sample of U.S. health insurance holders. We used a combination of panel providers (including Respondent.io and dScout) to reach individuals across different insurance types and demographics. The survey was fielded between May 2023 and June 2025. Participants had to be adults (18+ years) living in the U.S. and currently covered by health insurance (private or public) – or explicitly state if they were uninsured. We included a small fraction of uninsured individuals to contextualize certain responses, but the core analysis focuses on the insured population (since Flexpa’s use case involves linking a health insurance account).

Sample size & composition: A total of 5,602 respondents completed the survey. Crucially, we achieved a broad representation across all major lines of insurance: employer-sponsored plans, individual ACA marketplace plans, Medicare (and Medicare Advantage), Medicaid, and military/VA coverage. Ages ranged from 18 to 88, with a median age in the mid-40s. The sample included a diverse mix of genders, ethnicities, education levels, and income brackets, mirroring the general insured population. Notably, the sample did include individuals with self-reported disabilities or health conditions; however, the survey was written (online) which inherently means all participants had at least basic internet and device access.

Key survey questions: The survey instrument was designed to directly address the objections at hand. Relevant questions included:

• “Which statement best describes your current health insurance status?” (I am insured, I am not insured, I am not sure)

• “Have you created an online account with your current health insurance plan?” (Yes/No response).

• “What is the name of your current primary health insurance plan?” (Open-ended, with an auto-suggest list of insurers to choose from or fill in “Other”).

• “What is your primary health insurance plan type?” (Multiple choice: options included Employer-sponsored, Individual/Marketplace, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicaid/CHIP, VA, TriCare, Not sure, and Uninsured).

• “How do you feel about sharing your health/medical data with third-party digital health applications?” (Five-point Likert scale: Very Uncomfortable, Somewhat Uncomfortable, Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable, Somewhat Comfortable, Very Comfortable).

• “Tell us more about that rating…why do you feel this way about sharing your health/medical data…?” (Open-ended, 2–4 sentence written response).

We also collected standard demographics and some context (employment status, etc.) to understand if, say, comfort correlates with age or tech familiarity.

Data analysis: Quantitative results (yes/no and Likert scale responses) were tallied and segmented by insurance plan type. We paid special attention to the rates of online account ownership in each segment, as well as the distribution of comfort levels. Qualitative responses were analyzed using thematic coding – identifying common themes such as “privacy concerns,” “trust in technology,” “nothing to hide,” “helps my care,” etc. We also extracted verbatim quotes that exemplified typical viewpoints (both positive and negative toward data sharing). Wherever possible, we compared our findings with external data – for instance, comparing our measured 85.5% online account adoption to industry data on patient portal usage or analogous behaviors like online banking – to see if results were in line with broader trends.

It’s worth noting the limitations: because this was an online survey, it may slightly over-represent people who are already internet users and comfortable answering online questionnaires. This could inflate the reported percentage of online account usage compared to the absolute true population rate. However, given internet penetration is ~93% in the U.S. and even older adults increasingly use the internet, we believe our results are broadly in-line with what we would see in a truly random sample. We also acknowledge that self-reported behavior can differ from actual behavior (e.g., someone might claim to have an insurance account but perhaps haven’t logged in for a long time). Despite these caveats, the data provide valuable directional insight and a large enough sample to draw statistically significant conclusions about the trends.

In the next section, we present the findings from this research, structured around the three primary objections, and supplemented by industry benchmark data for context.

Findings and Analysis

Objection 1: Do users know their health plan’s name (or will they confuse it with providers)?

Survey result: The vast majority of respondents were able to correctly name their health insurance company. When asked “What is the name of your health insurance plan?”, almost everyone provided a recognizable plan name (e.g. “United Healthcare,” “Anthem Blue Cross,” “Aetna,” “Medicare,” “Florida Blue,” etc.). This suggests that lack of awareness of one’s insurer is not widespread. Even among older adults or those on public plans, most knew their plan by name or at least could identify the insurer when prompted with a list. For example, in qualitative feedback, this user was able to specifically illustrate the differences between all their data sources:

There were some instances of confusion – for example, a few respondents entered something like “I have MyChart” or wrote the name of a provider system. In our dataset, such cases were rare (well under 5%). A small number chose “I’m not sure” for plan type, indicating uncertainty about whether their plan was, say, employer-based or an ACA plan – often these were adult children or young adults still on a parent’s plan. But even these respondents usually still knew the insurance company (just not the plan category).

Industry context: It’s reasonable that users might be unclear on industry terminology (like ACA vs. employer plan), but almost everyone knows the company that pays their claims – if only because they receive insurance cards, explanation-of-benefits mail, bills, or emails from that company. By analogy, a banking customer might not know the nuances of account type (checking vs. money market), but they certainly know which bank they use. Health insurance can be complex, but that top-level awareness is typically there.

Addressing the issue: Flexpa has already incorporated solutions for this. The Flexpa Link interface provides a search function with common insurer names and logos, which is very forgiving to user confusion. For instance, if a user typed “Blue Cross” (without specifying which state’s Blue Cross), the UI would list various Blue Cross Blue Shield entities to pick from, including, say, Anthem (which operates BCBS in some states) or regional BCBS plans.

Flexpa’s plan search results are geotargeted, so that plans operating in the same state as where the patient is searching from are shown before those. This in particular helps with the “Blue Cross” search above, where patients can easily and readily identify the plan’s brand name – but need assistance in selecting the state-specific variation.

Additionally, Flexpa Link’s autocomplete suggestions mean that even partial or slightly incorrect inputs can still get the user to the right choice. For example, a user searching “Metro” will see the option for MetroPlus Health Plan, etc. This design consideration is important because it doesn’t rely on perfect user knowledge; it helps the user along. Our findings support that these measures are likely sufficient – since most people do know their insurer, and those who are on the fence can be helped with simple prompts or visual cues.

It’s also worth noting that in environments where a user truly doesn’t know their plan (perhaps someone very detached from their coverage details), the alternative would likely be them not knowing other critical info as well. Such users might need one-on-one assistance regardless of the system in use. For the average user, however, knowing their plan name is not a blocker.

Bottom line: Users can absolutely identify their health insurance plan’s name. With Flexpa’s existing UX (searchable list and clear instructions), the risk of a user abandoning the flow because they “don’t know their plan name” is minimal. The data indicates that outright confusion is the exception, not the rule.

Objection 2: Do users have online accounts with their health insurer?

This is a critical question – if a user has never created credentials on their insurer’s portal, the Flexpa flow would require them to do so (which is an extra step outside of Flexpa, potentially causing drop-off). Our survey results provide a very clear answer:

Survey result: 85.5% of insured respondents answered “Yes” – they have created an online account with their current health insurance plan. This is an eye-opening statistic. It means that more than 5 out of 6 people across the country, in 2025, have taken the step of registering on their health plan’s website or mobile app. Only about 15% said they had not (or were not sure). The figure below illustrates this breakdown:

When broken down by insurance type, the trend remains strong, albeit with some variation by segment:

• Employer-sponsored insurance: Users with employer-based coverage showed the highest rate of online account ownership. This makes sense – employers and insurers often encourage portal use for things like wellness programs, digital ID cards, etc. In our sample, 91.10% of employer-sponsored plan members had an online account. Federal Employees, an analogous but separately managed group, had 83.3% online account creation. Together, across all employer based plan members, 90.9% of them had created an online account.

• Medicare (including Medicare Advantage): Contrary to what popular opinion assumes the Medicare and Medicare Advantage populations had the next two highest rates of online account usage. 89.1% of Medicare Advantage users and 83.9% of Traditional Medicare users in our sample had created an account (either on Medicare.gov for traditional Medicare or on their MA plan’s site). Traditional Medicare users are actually tied with Marketplace (ACA) members in digital account creation. Together, 87.6% of the Medicare aged population has created an online account to manage their claims. This challenges the stereotype that seniors categorically avoid technology – clearly, a large portion of them do engage digitally with their health plan.

• Marketplace (ACA) plans: These users also had high adoption, with an observed 83.9% of ACA plan holders with accounts. Many marketplace insurers heavily push online account creation during enrollment for managing premiums and claims, providing a differentiating customer experience, and utilizing benefits, so this is expected.

• Medicaid: Medicaid enrollees varied by state (since each state program has its own portal), but overall also showed a majority with accounts, 75.1%. This was somewhat lower than Medicare’s rate in our sample. It’s plausible that Medicaid populations face more barriers (access to internet or devices), or don’t need to manage claims as frequently due to payment structures, but even so, the data indicates a strong uptake of digital tools. Many states have been improving their Medicaid member websites and mobile apps, which may contribute to this usage.

• Military/VA: Respondents with Veterans Affairs healthcare or Tricare (military insurance) were a smaller subset, but a considerable number, 76%, did have online accounts (e.g., VA’s MyHealtheVet or Tricare Online). Veterans who use VA health facilities often use the online system for prescriptions or records, and Tricare families are often younger and digitally savvy, so this isn’t surprising.

Summary: Across every category of insurance, a large supermajority of users have online accounts. Even in the lowest group (perhaps Medicaid in some regions), we are still looking at two-thirds of the users. The notion that “users won’t have accounts” is outdated – in 2023–2025, having an online account for insurance is becoming as routine as having one for your bank. One respondent quipped in their open feedback, encapsulating the generational shift in expectations.

Why this matters: For Flexpa, these numbers are encouraging. It means the addressable market of users who can immediately use Flexpa (i.e., have credentials ready) is very high. The roughly 15% who don’t have accounts are the ones who might hit a snag. What can Flexpa do to support them? A few strategies:

• In-flow sign-up: If a user enters Flexpa Link and discovers they don’t have an account, Flexpa’s interface currently advises them to create one (with a link to the insurer site). This isn’t ideal to do on the fly, but it’s a fallback. Improving that handoff – perhaps opening the insurer’s registration page in a new tab and guiding them back – is one way to support those users. It’s similar to some banking flows where if you don’t have online banking, you’re prompted to register.

• Pre-emptive encouragement: Flexpa can help its customers mitigate this by nudging users before invoking Flexpa Link. For instance, an app could say “Connect your health plan (if you haven’t used your insurer’s website before, take a minute to register for online access on their site first – it’s quick!).” Given the relatively small fraction without accounts, this might add a bit of overhead for a few users, but it sets them up for success. The additional time required should be fractional compared to the value they should perceive they’ll receive from the app if they do it.

• Alternate data access: In cases of populations truly unable to create accounts, companies might consider alternate data collection methods (though these are outside Flexpa’s direct scope, it could be manual upload or assisting via call centers). But these would be exceptions.

It’s also noteworthy that some of the 14.5% “no account” respondents are by choice, not inability. A number of them indicated they just never felt the need. One could infer that if presented with a compelling reason (like getting benefits from a new app via Flexpa), a subset of those would be willing to create an account. In our survey, of those 14.5% with no account, 100% of those who did not have an online account said they’d be willing to create one.

Overall, this data largely dispels worries that users don’t have online accounts. Over 5 in 6 Americans do have accounts – and it’s growing. Account access, therefore, is not a fundamental blocker – it’s a manageable workflow detail. Flexpa’s approach is validated by these adoption numbers.

Objection 3: Will users remember their usernames and passwords (or will credential issues derail them)?

Survey insights: We did not directly ask “do you remember your password?” for that may product results incongruent with observed results, and instead we looked at Flexpa’s real world usage. Flexpa collects structured feedback when a user abandons a connection attempt, and in the past 6 months only 8.38% have been due to forgotten or incorrect credentials, indicating credentials is not a major cause of connection issues. The lion’s share comes from time-outs (43.96%), users simply closing the window (32.33%), or payer-side issues and other edge cases (8.58%). Credential trouble is visible in the telemetry, but it is a minor contributor to overall friction. Qualitative product feedback indicates the first two categories are typically the result of users who return to complete the flow later, value props that weren’t strong enough to motivate connection in the first place, or in-clinic staff who pre-emptively leave Flexpa open.

Based on the survey, we can also infer some things. Among those who had online accounts, a large majority proceeded to express a willingness or unwillingness to share data, but very few spontaneously mentioned “I might not remember my login” as a concern in the open-ended answers. This suggests that people consider retrieving or using their credentials a solvable problem. If forgetting passwords was a top-of-mind worry, we would expect to see it mentioned frequently as a reason for discomfort or disinterest, but instead concerns centered on data security and privacy (discussed soon). This doesn’t mean no one forgets passwords – it simply means users probably don’t view it as a deal-breaker; they know they can reset passwords if needed.

From an observational standpoint, in analogous flows like connecting a bank account or signing into a patient portal, a certain percentage of users will need to hit “forgot password.” This is a known step in any login-based flow. The crucial consideration is whether this need is so frustrating that users abandon the flow. Industry research generally shows that if users are motivated (they see value in proceeding), they will go through a password reset if necessary. It’s on the implementer to ensure this process is smooth. In Flexpa’s case, since the actual authentication happens on the health plan’s site, the user would use the insurer’s password reset mechanism. Most insurer sites have standard recovery flows (email or SMS reset links). There might be some variance in user experience quality across insurers, but all large insurers will have modernized this.

Comparison to fintech: This concern closely mirrors early fears in the financial API space. Release notes from MX (another financial data company) noted that their strategies in reducing user drop-off often involves minimizing the effort around credential input, but not eliminating it entirely; things like shortening the time-out windows and providing clear error messages help. Plaid itself has been innovating with features like pre-fill and saving credentials (where users opt in) to streamline subsequent logins The take-home point is: users are capable of managing credentials, especially when there’s a clear reward (like using a valuable app). Here a user clearly indicates how linking accounts feels like the norm:

Practical considerations: Flexpa and its customers can take steps to assist with this issue: for instance, informing users what will be needed (e.g. “You’ll need your health plan login; if you forgot it, you can reset it during the connection process”). This sets expectations. Some other tips could include “If you don’t remember your password, use the ‘Forgot password’ link on your health plan’s site.” It sounds obvious, but gentle reminders that this is normal can reduce anxiety.

Another angle is credential management for return users. If a user connects their plan once via Flexpa for a given app, the token system means they typically don’t have to log in again for that app’s ongoing access (until maybe token refresh after a long period). So, the pain of recalling credentials is usually a one-time event per app.

User mindset: It’s interesting to consider psychological aspects. Some users store their insurance login info in their browsers or password managers; those users will breeze through the login (perhaps even auto-filled). Others might treat it like any other account recovery task. Since insurance is something people use at least yearly (e.g. during open enrollment or to check benefits), it’s likely not a complete unknown for most. In fact, some health plans have integrated login options (like logging in via a healthcare.gov account for some ACA plans, or via ID.me for CMS) – these can streamline things if available. CMS is leading the charge via their June 2025 commitment to using modern identity verification experiences for smoother, interoperable, sign-in methods. Until then, it’s one plan = one login. But since most users only have one or two insurers (e.g. Medicare + a supplemental, or a primary insurance), it’s manageable.

In summary, while the concern about credential recall is valid on an individual friction level, it is not a show-stopper on a population level. People manage to do this for many other services. As long as Flexpa’s flow and the surrounding user communication handle it with care, the impact on overall adoption should be minimal. It’s more about polishing UX than questioning if the model works. We can confidently tell stakeholders: users can and will handle their credentials, given sufficient motivation and basic guidance. The data from our research and analogous industries back this up.

Additional Finding: User comfort with sharing health data

Beyond the mechanics of account linking, our research also probed how users feel about sharing their health/medical data with third-party digital applications. This speaks to a deeper issue: even if a user can connect their account, do they want to? Will they grant consent?

Survey result: User attitudes ranged from very uncomfortable to very comfortable, with a slight skew toward the comfortable side. Here’s a breakdown of the Likert responses (aggregated): 55% were at least “Comfortable” with the idea of sharing their health data with third-party apps, with 25.7% were neutral, and 19.4% were uncomfortable to some degree.

The open-ended explanations provide insight into why people felt the way they did.

“Comfortable” respondents’ themes: The most common reasons given by those who felt comfortable were benefit related. Many said that if sharing their data leads to better healthcare insights, personal benefits (like more tailored services or rewards), or helps others and research, they are all for it, even if initially hesitant.

Others mentioned that they have “nothing to hide” health-wise, or that they already trust that their data is protected by regulations like HIPAA. Convenience was another factor – some noted that having their data shared means:

Uncomfortable respondents’ themes: Those on the uncomfortable side mostly cited privacy and misuse fears. They worry who might ultimately see the data or to what ends it could be used. For instance, one common fear was data being sold to marketers or used by employers/insurers to discriminate. A powerful quote:

This respondent was worried about stigma or discrimination if their health conditions were known. Others indicate being principally opposed to sharing their health information:

Interestingly, a number of the “Uncomfortable” or “Very Uncomfortable” folks still acknowledged possible benefits. Quite a few wrote statements akin to marking as uncomfortable only because it depends on the application requesting the information. This suggests that with the right assurances and value proposition, they might be swayed. One respondent marked “Uncomfortable” and wrote:

This indicates the mindset is not fixed; context matters.

Demographic trends: Older respondents did not uniformly distrust data sharing – in fact, many seniors were in favor, especially if they had chronic conditions that could benefit from better data portability. Younger folks sometimes had more privacy tech-savvy fears (like knowing about data breaches or secondary uses of data). Interestingly, those on Medicaid and lower incomes had a mix of views – some were suspicious (perhaps due to historical marginalization), others were eager for any help available. Education level did seem to correlate slightly: those with some college or higher were a bit more likely to be comfortable, possibly because they better understood what the data would be used for. But the differences were not huge.

Implications for Flexpa’s approach: Building trust is crucial. Users need to know that their data will be handled securely and only used for the purposes they consent to. Flexpa has a strong foundation here: the consent flow explicitly names the application requesting access and the scope of data to be shared. It also notes compliance and security (Flexpa’s privacy policy, etc.). This transparency aligns with what our respondents want.

On the other hand, overcoming deep-seated privacy concerns might require broader education and time. Respondents are already indicating that “in this day and age” sharing is a default and that being online will provide everyone with better access and experiences for care.

For those particularly concerned about misuse, case studies, endorsements, brand awareness, can all help build trust. It’s somewhat analogous to how people were initially wary of online banking; over time, seeing others use it, seeing banks guarantee protection, seeing your trust apps like Venmo build in Plaid, and general growing usage caused the idea to become mainstream. Similarly, as digital health apps become more common (and perhaps as health data sharing becomes commonplace, comfort levels will naturally rise.

Finally, it’s worth highlighting that users with disabilities or complex health needs might actually benefit the most from data sharing, yet they could be among the more concerned groups. We had a respondent with multiple chronic conditions say:

The key is to articulate the value (better care coordination, personalized services) while upholding the safeguards. Flexpa’s role should be presented as an enabler that operates under strict consent and security frameworks, perhaps even more stringently than typical healthcare data use (since the user has to actively authorize it).

Conclusion of this finding: A majority of users are open to sharing their data through a platform like Flexpa, especially if it benefits them or others. A minority have reservations that revolve mostly around trust. By addressing these concerns head-on – through transparency, education, and robust privacy protections – Flexpa and its clients can alleviate most of these fears. The survey quotes provide a qualitative mandate: be clear, be secure, and show the user what’s in it for them. If those boxes are checked, objections about data sharing comfort can be turned into points of enthusiasm (“look how empowered you are with your own data!”) rather than obstacles.

Conclusion and Flexpa’s Areas of Improvement

Conclusion: Our research presents a clear message – the supposed barriers to digital health plan linking are far lower than many assume. Americans across age and income groups are, by and large, already engaging with their health insurers online. They know who their insurers are, they’ve created online accounts, and they’re capable of using those credentials when there’s a compelling reason. Furthermore, a majority are open to sharing their health information through secure applications, provided they understand the benefits and safeguards.

The objections raised (around awareness, access, and recall) are understandable, but the data shows they can be managed:

• Awareness of insurer: This is essentially a non-issue for most users, and straightforward UI/UX measures fill the gaps for the few who are unsure.

• Online account availability: With ~85% having accounts, the focus should shift from “Will users have accounts?” to “Let’s efficiently onboard the 85% that do, and guide the 15% that don’t.” The latter is a one-time setup problem, not a showstopper.

• Credential recall: Similar to above, it’s a common friction but one that users navigate regularly in other contexts. Through clear guidance and patience (e.g. encouraging use of reset options), this can be mitigated. It’s certainly not a dead-end – users who want the service will make the effort, as long as we support them.

Crucially, none of these points detract from the value proposition of Flexpa’s approach – if anything, they highlight that the market is ready for it. We’re not trying to force a non-digital population into a digital process; that shift has largely already happened organically. Instead, we’re tapping into an existing user behavior (accessing one’s records online) and extending its utility (by sharing records with another app of the user’s choosing).

While concerns for poor adoption should be significantly alleviated, Flexpa has taken these results and will use these findings to address the remaining concerns:

1. Continue to find and solve for preventable dropoff: While users are aware of their insurance company, there are many confusing overlaps between insurance company name, insurance brand names (i.e. Anthem and Blue Cross Blue Shield), and your benefits administrator if on an employer-sponsored plan. Flexpa will continue increasing observability into these scenarios and build workflows to support users.

2. Double down on user education and transparency: Both Flexpa and its clients should proactively communicate how the consented data sharing works. This includes explaining who will see the data, for what purpose, security and privacy assurances, a polished app flow, and how sharing benefits the user. For example, a brief in-app explainer or video during onboarding can demystify the process (“You’ll log in to your health plan through our secure link – similar to logging in through your insurer’s app – so we can fetch your records automatically. We do not store your login info, and your data is encrypted. Here’s exactly what we will access…”). Educated users are more likely to trust and complete the process.

3. Provide additional support for special populations: As discussed, for user groups with disabilities or very low tech literacy, have a plan. This could include:

   • Printable guides or FAQ handouts that clinics or support staff can give to users (with screenshots of the process).

   • Training client support teams to handle calls from users who need help linking (so they know it’s about guiding them through Flexpa Link, maybe even with a scripted walkthrough).

   • More natively supporting an authorization by proxy feature if legally/technically feasible, where a caregiver could do the linking given appropriate proof of consent. This might be more complex to implement, but even starting conversations about it could be useful for certain client segments (e.g., pediatric use-cases or elder care).

In closing, the research gives confidence that the barriers are lower than perceived. By addressing the remaining objections with the strategies outlined, Flexpa and its customers can improve adoption and user satisfaction. The consented data-sharing model is not only viable; it’s poised to become a standard part of digital health experiences. Those who embrace it early – and execute it well – will have a significant advantage in delivering value to users. The onus is on us to continue refining the experience and educating users, but the foundation is solid.