“I’m calling for my partner.”
Does the caller have current permission to cancel this appointment—or just enough information to sound convincing?
Test the permission ↗PATIENT-ACCESS PENETRATION TESTING
Can the wrong person change a patient’s appointment?
A convincing request. An unchecked permission. A real change to someone’s care arrangements.
We test who can act through your voice agents, chat and portals—and follow the result into your scheduling records, communications and recovery.
Independent assessment. Your workflow. Your rules. Led by Cole Lyons.
VOICE & IVACHAT & AGENTSWEBSITES & PORTALSCONNECTED WORKFLOWS
THE ACTION BEHIND THE ANSWER
The call ends.
The consequences don’t.
A helpful answer can hide an unauthorized write, an unresolved transaction or a patient left without a workable next step.
“That didn’t go through. Try again.”
If the first change committed before the response timed out, a retry can create another error. What does the record actually show?
Test the recovery ↗“Someone will call you back.”
Who owns that request? A blocked write still needs a truthful status and an assisted route the patient can use.
Test the handoff ↗Illustrative assessment scenarios. No customer system or patient outcome is represented.
A DOCUMENTED FAILURE CLASS
Appointment changes are already an authorization target.
A June 2026 Easy!Appointments maintainer advisory describes authenticated users obtaining other providers’ appointment identifiers and using them to modify or delete appointments.
This is a specific software advisory, not evidence that most hospitals are vulnerable or that AI caused the flaw.
Read the maintainer’s advisory ↗ONE FLAGSHIP ENGAGEMENT
Patient Access
Workflow Assessment.
Start with one consequential workflow and the dependencies that make it work. Get evidence your security, operations and vendor teams can act on.
EXAMPLE SCOPE
An appointment change.
From caller to confirmation.
One voice agent and scheduling connector, with agreed patient and proxy roles, record access, notifications, handoff and a recovery path.
Explore the engagement-
01
Scope & model
Approved rules, dependencies, test authorization and expected outcomes.
-
02
Exercise & prove
Adversarial cases paired with legitimate use, tied to authoritative records.
-
03
Remediate & retest
Prioritized findings, corrective owners and a bounded retest of agreed fixes.
Clinics & health systems
Before an access rollout, connector change or vendor acceptance decision.
Healthcare technology vendors
Independent evidence for a configured customer workflow and its shared responsibilities.
Pharmacies
Separately scoped refill intake, pickup authority and account access, using pharmacy-specific rules.
INSPECT THE WORK PRODUCT
Show the rule.
Trace the effect.
Make the fix testable.
See how a finding separates an attempted action from a committed change—and includes the legitimate request the fix must preserve.
Read the synthetic finding ↗
PA-01 / PROXY AUTHORITYSYNTHETIC · NOT RUN
Permission revoked.
Session still active.
- Expected rule
- Recheck current proxy authority before cancellation.
- Evidence needed
- Decision → connector call → record → notification.
- Retest
- Former proxy blocked. Authorized patient still able to act.
DIRECT ACCOUNTABILITY
Work with Cole.
Keep the context.
Access Red Team is a founder-led practice built around the systems behind patient access.
Cole’s published work connects authorization, operational quality and recovery. He leads scoping, assessment communication and the handoff of evidence to your team.
START WITH ONE WORKFLOW
What are you
about to trust?
Tell Cole where a request becomes an action. Start a conversation about scope, evidence and the decision you need to make.
Direct founder contact
Cole is available around the clock for customer concerns. Live answering and technical response depend on the contact route and your engagement.
For an urgent existing-customer concern, use your agreed escalation route. If Cole is occupied, leave a callback request there and contact your organization’s responsible owner.