Optometry RPA, verified
The Eye Center Doctors of Optometry, P.A. UiPath case study
If you searched for a UiPath case study on this specific optometry practice, here is the honest answer first, then the optometry automation story that actually exists and what it tells you about automating an eye-care practice.
Direct answer · verified June 19, 2026
No public UiPath case study exists for The Eye Center Doctors of Optometry, P.A.
UiPath’s customer-stories library has no entry for this practice. The optometry customer story UiPath does publish is MyEyeDr, a multi-state optometry group. You can confirm the absence yourself in the UiPath customer success stories directory.
What you were probably looking for
The Eye Center Doctors of Optometry, P.A. is a multi-doctor optometric practice. The “P.A.” is the Professional Association legal structure that US optometry and medical groups incorporate under; it is the entity type, not the state of Pennsylvania, which trips up a lot of searches for practices with this naming pattern.
A query for “this practice plus UiPath case study” almost always means one of two things: someone is benchmarking how an optometry group of this size automates back-office work, or someone at a practice like this is deciding whether to buy UiPath at all. The useful document for both is the one optometry case study UiPath has actually published, so that is where the rest of this page goes.
The real optometry UiPath case study: MyEyeDr
MyEyeDr grows largely by acquisition, which means a steady stream of system conversions and claim cleanup. According to the customer story on uipath.com, their robots carried a large share of that load. These are the figures UiPath puts its name to:
in remittances processed in a single year through cash-application robots
in eyewear claim revenue retained in 2022 by automating claim movement
provider applications processed annually with credentialing automation
Figures reported in the MyEyeDr UiPath customer story. MyEyeDr also reported $310K in payroll saved by automating claim movement and merger integrations completed in 60 days or less.
“In those instances, we turn to RPA as a way to take care of things because it's just faster.”
The line in that case study that matters most
Buried in the MyEyeDr story is the most honest sentence in optometry automation. The team describes their practice-management software as getting them roughly 30% of the way, with RPA picking up where the software leaves off and doing another 40% to 50%. The case study is explicit that the optometry software ecosystem lacks robust APIs and database access for integration.
Read that again from a buyer’s seat. Half the work lives in a layer the software vendor will not give you an API for, so the only way in is to drive the screen the way a person does. That is not a UiPath fact or a Mediar fact. It is an optometry-desktop fact, and it is the single thing that decides whether your automation survives the next EHR update.
Where that 40-50% actually lives
These are the optometry EHR and practice-management systems that run on the desktop, and the screens RPA has to fill by hand because there is no write-back API behind them:
desktop
Named systems verified against vendor sites and Optometry Times EHR coverage. Each runs on the Windows desktop with limited or no write-back API.
Why the “how it reads the screen” choice decides everything
If the only way to automate the no-API layer is to drive the screen, the question becomes how the robot finds a field. UiPath records a selector or a coordinate during a developer build. When the optometry EHR ships a layout change, that selector misses and the automation stops until someone re-records it. For a practice running daily intake and claims, every stall is real money and a clinician waiting.
Mediar reads the accessibility tree that Windows already exposes, the same interface a screen reader uses, and resolves a field by its label rather than its pixel position. A moved button keeps working because its name did not change. There are no brittle pixel matchers or selectors to maintain, which is why automations self-heal when the interface shifts.
Selector-driven RPA vs accessibility-tree automation
The comparison that matters once you accept the optometry desktop has no API for the screens you need to fill.
| Feature | UiPath | Mediar |
|---|---|---|
| How it finds a field on the EHR screen | Records a selector or screen coordinate during a developer build | Reads the live accessibility tree the OS already exposes, by element name |
| What happens when the EHR ships a UI update | Selector misses, robot stops, a developer re-records the step | Re-resolves the field by its label, so a moved button keeps working |
| Time to a first working automation | Weeks to months of CoE backlog and developer time | Days, because it learns the workflow by watching it run once |
| Cost shape | Per-bot licensing plus implementation services | $0.75 per minute of runtime, no per-seat licensing |
| Compliance posture for patient data | Available on enterprise tiers | SOC 2 Type II and HIPAA, on-prem or cloud deployment |
UiPath is a strong, mature platform with deep orchestration. Where it struggles is specifically the no-API legacy desktop layer that optometry practice-management software lives on, and where layout drift forces constant selector maintenance.
When UiPath is still the right call
If you already run a UiPath Center of Excellence, have orchestration and governance built around it, and your highest-volume work sits in systems with clean APIs, ripping that out for a screen-driven approach is not obviously worth it. The MyEyeDr numbers are real and they were earned on UiPath.
The case to look at Mediar is narrower and sharper: you are staring at a six-figure RPA implementation quote, or your existing robots keep breaking on EHR layout changes, or the work you most need to automate is the patient-intake and claims screens that have no API at all. That is the 40-to-50% layer the optometry case study itself points at, and it is the layer the accessibility-tree approach was built for.
See it run on your optometry EHR before you commit
Bring one intake or claims workflow from RevolutionEHR, Compulink, Eyefinity, or whatever you run. We will show it automated by element name, not selectors, on a short call.
Optometry UiPath case study: common questions
Is there a UiPath case study for The Eye Center Doctors of Optometry, P.A.?
No. As of June 2026, UiPath's public customer-stories library does not contain a case study for The Eye Center Doctors of Optometry, P.A. The optometry customer story UiPath does publish is MyEyeDr, a multi-state optometry group. If you found this practice while researching optometry RPA, MyEyeDr is the document you are most likely looking for.
Does the 'P.A.' mean the practice is in Pennsylvania?
Not necessarily. In a name like 'Doctors of Optometry, P.A.', the P.A. is the Professional Association legal structure that US optometric and medical groups commonly incorporate under. It describes the business entity, not the state. Several optometry groups across different states carry the 'P.A.' suffix.
What did the MyEyeDr UiPath case study actually report?
Per the MyEyeDr customer story on uipath.com, automation handled $186M in remittances in a single year, retained $6.9M in eyewear claim revenue in 2022, saved $310K in payroll by moving claims automatically, and supported 385,000 provider applications a year. Cassie Haag, Director of Systems and Analytics, is quoted that the team turns to RPA because it is faster, and that the software gets them about 30% of the way while RPA picks up another 40 to 50%.
Why does optometry RPA hit a wall on the practice-management software?
Optometry EHR and PMS platforms such as RevolutionEHR, Compulink Advantage, Eyefinity/OfficeMate, and Crystal PM were built for clinicians at a screen, not for machine-to-machine writes. There is rarely an API to push a new patient, an order, or a claim status back into the chart. So whatever the software does not automate falls to a human typing into a screen, which is exactly where screen-driven automation has to operate.
How is Mediar different from the UiPath approach in that case study?
UiPath drives the screen with recorded selectors and coordinates, which break when the EHR layout changes. Mediar reads the same accessibility tree a screen reader uses, so it finds a field by its label rather than its position. That means automations self-heal when the interface shifts, go live in days instead of months, and bill at $0.75 per minute of runtime instead of per-bot licensing.
Can Mediar work with the optometry systems my practice already runs?
If the workflow runs on a Windows desktop, including legacy and no-API systems, Mediar can read what the application exposes and act on it. It is SOC 2 Type II certified and HIPAA compliant, and deploys on-prem or in the cloud, which matters for patient data in an eye-care setting.
Comments (••)
Leave a comment to see what others are saying.Public and anonymous. No signup.