Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Records Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs proposal to speed medical-record transfers to other health care providers
Summary
Senate Bill 138 would shorten deadlines for medical record transfer when a health care provider requests them and clarify fees; hospitals and vendors warned the Board of Medicine rules already require timely transfer while patient advocates and providers said third-party vendors are charging extra fees and holding records hostage.
Senate Bill 138, aimed at accelerating access to medical records when a health care provider requests them, drew mixed testimony at the House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee hearing.
Sponsor Senator Tim McHugh said the bill would shorten the statutory deadline for transferring records to another provider (the Senate language would align New Hampshire with other states that require transfer within roughly two weeks) and clear up ambiguity about whether a provider transferring records on a patient’s behalf should be treated differently than other requesters.
Providers and hospitals: Ben Bradley of the New Hampshire Hospital Association said hospitals support timely access but argued that the Board of Medicine’s MED 501.02 standard of conduct already requires timely responses and that enforcement belongs with the licensing board, not the legislature. He said hospitals were not aware of a systemic pattern of noncompliance. Malcolm Perry, chief executive officer of Derry Medical Center, said smaller practices and some third-party vendors routinely charge patients fees to supply records and that those fees have prevented continuity of care when patients must pay to transfer records to a new provider.
Patient advocates and attorneys: Holly Haynes (representing trial attorneys) and Raymond Burke (New Hampshire Legal Assistance) described repeated instances where outsourced third-party vendors tack on additional fees and “data-archive” surcharges beyond the statutory $50 cap; Haynes submitted examples of invoices stating the base $50 fee plus extra certification and archive charges were being withheld from patients until paid. Advocates urged clearer statutory language that (1) exempts provider-to-provider transfers from additional charges, (2) limits third-party vendor fees, and (3) makes explicit that patients should receive at least one copy of their records at no cost.
Committee and regulatory questions: Members asked whether the Board of Medicine rules (MED 501.02) already cover the issue and whether the board or the legislature should act. New Hampshire Hospital Association counsel said the board’s standards do set expectations but that hospital records departments and third-party vendors complicate enforcement.
What’s next: Committee members asked DHHS and stakeholders for sample contract language, data on complaint volumes to the Board of Medicine, and examples of third-party invoices. The bill’s language may be adjusted to clarify that provider-to-provider transfers for continuity of care are prioritized and to address third-party vendor billing practices.
