Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Records Parental Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel hears HB 560 to restore parental access to adolescents’ medical records; hospitals ask for technical fixes
Summary
Supporters said HB 560 would restore parents’ ability to access their minor children’s medical records in online portals and by electronic request; hospital groups and providers urged amendments to avoid technical conflicts with patient-privacy rules and with automated portal systems.
The House Children and Family Law Committee heard testimony on House Bill 560, which would affirm parents’ access to their minor children’s medical records — including electronic records — while preserving existing state and federal privacy protections for specified services.
Representative Melissa Litchfield, sponsor of HB 560, said parents maintain responsibility for care and bills and should be able to see records, scheduling and immunization information that current portal configurations sometimes hide. "Parents are directed to the portal," she said, "but once a child turns 13 they actually turn off parental permission and they say that the child has to have their own email." Litchfield and supporters said that default-cutoff policies by some providers create avoidable obstacles for families.
Supporters including Melissa Blasek of Rebuild NH and emergency physician Dr. Bridal Chorongelu said restoring access will help parents coordinate care and reduce medical errors. Dr. Chorongelu said she was blocked from her child’s records after the child turned 12 and that the lack of access complicated follow-up specialist care.
The New Hampshire Hospital Association and other providers said they support the bill’s intent but asked for targeted amendments. Ben Bradley of the hospital association said patient portals and electronic-health-record systems vary; portals cannot reliably redact narrow categories of protected care (for example, certain STD treatment, reproductive health, or substance-use treatment), so a statutory definition that treats portal content as identical to a full medical record could force hospitals to disable adolescent portals or to adopt costly reconfiguration. Dartmouth Health recommended language clarifying how protective orders and court orders should be recognized across jurisdictions and aligning statutory terms with federal HIPAA references (the committee packet cited 45 CFR provisions).
Committee members and witnesses discussed protective orders, the difference between sending an electronic copy and portal access, and whether technology and staffing constraints would create costs for smaller or non-automated providers. Committee members asked staff to develop technical language to align the bill with federal privacy rules and to address implementation details before a committee vote.
