Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Electronic Medical Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New Hampshire hearing examines bill to allow providers to opt out of electronic medical records
Summary
Representative Nagel told the Senate Health and Human Services Committee that House Bill 70 would let clinicians decline to use electronic medical records, arguing EMRs impose excessive cost and erode the doctor‑patient relationship.
Representative Nagel, a practicing physician, told the Senate Health and Human Services Committee that House Bill 70 is aimed at giving health care providers the option not to use electronic medical records. “If I had my way, I would take the electronic medical record. I would throw it to the bottom of the ocean and never bring it back,” Representative Nagel said, summarizing his longstanding criticism of current EMR systems.
Nut graf: Nagel framed HB 70 as a response to what he described as unintended consequences of federal EMR policies, including excessive costs for small practices and disruption of the doctor‑patient relationship. He urged lawmakers to allow clinicians who prefer not to use EMRs to continue working without penalty.
Nagel told the committee he considers two principles paramount: preserving the doctor‑patient relationship and protecting private practice from regulatory or cost pressures that he said lead to consolidation. He cited examples — a reported $1,000,000 upfront EMR purchase and annual maintenance of $200,000–$300,000 for a mental‑health provider — and said that those costs push small providers to sell to larger systems. He also quoted outside critics of EMR design, and described clinician frustration with templates, billing‑driven documentation and reduced face‑to‑face communication.
Anthem’s senior director of government relations, Sabrina Dunlap, testified in opposition. She told the committee HB 70 “is a solution in search of a problem” and warned the bill would restrict how existing EMRs are used, with practical consequences for claims processing and care coordination. Cam Lapine, representing Cigna, said the amendment described by Nagel did not address the carriers’ concerns.
Committee members asked practical questions about whether private payers in New Hampshire already require EMR use and whether standards for transmission and interoperability are needed. Nagel and witnesses said CMS (the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) had driven much of EMR adoption and that standards and transmission formats are a separate interoperability challenge.
The hearing included discussion of how EMR requirements intersect with proposed expansions of provider types covered by state law; Nagel said limiting EMR requirements would remove a potential barrier to non‑allopathic providers joining reimbursed care networks.
Ending: The committee heard multiple perspectives but did not take a final vote on HB 70 during the hearing. Insurer witnesses urged caution or changes; the bill’s sponsor said amendments addressing prior authorization and limited data elements were available for the committee’s consideration.
