Where the line sits between reminding a patient and harassing them

The fear is legitimate and it shows up in the first meeting: a health institution cannot let an automated system chase its patients. The answer that holds up in front of a regulator is a document written before the first message, plus a record of what was actually sent.

The institution draws the line and the system obeys it. Every parameter in the list below is a provider decision, taken before the first message goes out.

Where is the line between reminding and harassing?

1. A ceiling on attempts per order, counted across all channels together.
2. Permitted hours and days, with the weekend declared explicitly.
3. A quiet rule: how many days pass between one attempt and the next.
4. Immediate exit on any refusal from the patient, on any channel.
5. A ban on re-enrolling anyone who opted out, even if the campaign is renamed.
6. A log of every attempt with date, channel, content and call disposition.
7. Handover to a person the moment the patient asks to speak to someone.

The first two points matter less than the fourth. A generous ceiling with an exit that works on the first no draws fewer complaints than a strict ceiling with an exit that takes a day. US law makes that exit a duty: under the TCPA healthcare rules, a provider relying on the healthcare exemption has to act on an opt-out request immediately. Ley 19.628 allows the authorisation to process data to be revoked in writing, and that revocation has to be as easy as replying to the message. The full decision logic is published in how the agent decides.