Your hospital wants you to sign a waiver. can you say no

If your doctor’s office has ever asked you to sign an electronic pad without showing you exactly what you’re signing, you’re not alone.

CalMatters director of sociotechnical research, Alex Rosenblatt, has heard dozens of stories like this one as she visited clinics across the country to see how difficult it is for patients to do basic things like get a copy of their records or opt out of sharing their health data more widely.

At the end of Alex’s last pregnancy, she was in the OB/GYN office when she was given a form. He asked her to agree to allow Phreesia, a technology company that helps doctors’ offices with the registration process, to use her personal health data to target advertising. By law she didn’t have to sign it, but it was marked “Required” in red.

• Alex: “This made me wonder: when patients are asked to make a privacy choice during a medical record, can they actually choose anything other than ‘Yes’?”

She soon learned how difficult it would be for many patients to say no. She discovered dark patterns that could manipulate patients into choosing how their data could be searched on healthcare networks. The forms say you can opt out, but you can’t actually opt out right away.

Alex’s report also found that the dark patterns that consumer protection agencies have tackled in other areas of society, such as finance, were not on the agenda of healthcare privacy regulators. But experts say that could change.

Read more.

Help us report how this works in California: Have you tried opting out of sharing health information? Have you been asked to sign a privacy statement that you cannot read or reject? Have you ever had to negotiate the use of AI transcription or discover errors in medical transcriptions? Email Alex at rosenblat@calmatters.org.

These primaries are the most expensive primary campaign in state historyand much of the money comes from outside groups, Jeanne Kuang and Jeremia Kimelman of CalMatters report.

Unlike candidates, these groups — known as independent expenditure committees — can receive unlimited donations and are often funded by corporations and other special interests. So far, these committees report pouring $79 million into this election, more than double the amount spent in November 2018, when Gov. Gavin Newsom won his first term.

Much of that money has largely gone to Tom Steyer: a committee funded by the state association of Realtors, the California Chamber of Commerce, Pacific Gas & Electric and the state’s electrical workers union spent $32 million on ads opposing him.

Steyer embraced the spending spree against him, citing it as evidence that he would oppose utilities and big business if elected. The billionaire climate activist has poured an unprecedented $213 million of his own money into his campaign.

Read more.

From CalMatters political reporter Yue Stella Yu:

Have you been doomscrolling a lot?

Deputies in the assembly on Thursday unanimously submitted a proposal for ban most social media accounts for children under 16in their latest attempt to regulate the tech companies that keep kids glued to their phones.

The measure, modeled after a national ban in Australia, would prevent teenagers from having an account on social media platforms providing “addictive” personalized feeds and fine those companies for violations. It is based on a State ban from 2024 about companies providing children with addictive content without parental consent.

Some tech groups, digital privacy advocates and LGBTQ activists opposed it, arguing it would threaten children’s First Amendment rights to online information.

The bill now heads to the Senate and already has Newsom’s blessing.