Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Records Parental Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel advances bill on parental access to minors— medical records; debate centers on patient portal and court orders
Summary
The Judiciary Committee advanced HB 560, a bill addressing parental access to minors— medical records and patient portals. Committee members and hospital representatives debated how the measure interacts with federal HIPAA standards and court-ordered treatment or protective orders.
The House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend HB 560, a bill intended to clarify parental access to a minor—s medical records, including records made available through online patient portals.
Supporters said the bill would ensure parents or guardians can obtain records from health care providers and patient portals for minors until a statutory or court-based exception applies. Hospital representatives urged the committee to align statutory language with federal HIPAA standards, noting the federal statute uses professional-judgment language when a provider determines disclosure would be inconsistent with patient safety or confidentiality.
Committee members debated several provisions of an offered amendment. Concerns included whether the amendment—s language inadvertently removed patient-portal access, how to treat records when a court has ordered treatment for the minor, and the appropriate standard for a provider to withhold records ("professional judgment" versus an evidentiary standard). A hospital representative told the committee: "Lines 14 through 17 reflect the current determinations as outlined in HIPAA. So we wanted to make sure that the language mirrored how federal law affords that exception when a healthcare provider reasonably believes in his or her professional judgment." The representative also said the amendment—s court-language was intended to cover determinations by courts "of competent jurisdiction," including out-of-state protective orders under existing full-faith-and-credit provisions.
Some members expressed concern the amendment could be too broad in places (for example, where it references any court-directed treatment), while other members said the original bill language made clear the intent to include records available via patient portals. Members agreed to continue refining language; the committee ultimately voted to advance the bill and leave it off consent for further consideration.
The committee recorded an "aye" majority on the motion to pass and noted it would consider floor amendments to refine statutory cross-references and the standard for withholding records.
