Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Records Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to speed transfer of medical records; members ask for broader review of fees and interoperability
Summary
The Senate Health and Human Services Committee held a hearing on SB 138, a bill to shorten the permitted time for furnishing medical records to another health‑care provider, and heard testimony about fees, interoperability and examples of patients being charged for record transfers.
The Senate Health and Human Services Committee held a hearing on Senate Bill 138, which would shorten the time frame in which medical record holders must furnish records to another health care provider. Sponsor Sen. Tim McHugh argued that 30 days is too long in clinical practice and cited faster statutory deadlines in other states (for example, 10–15 days in several states).
Malcolm Perry, CEO of Derry Medical Center, testified that although most records are electronic, patients still face costs and delays when moving between different health systems. He related a common scenario in which an elderly patient who had seen the same primary care physician for decades was told she needed to pay $74.74 to transfer her records to a new provider — a barrier that sometimes forced receiving practices to reimburse patients to avoid gaps in care.
Marissa Chase, representing civil plaintiff attorneys, said her organization has no formal position on the bill but urged the committee to look more broadly at fees and third‑party record retrieval vendors. Chase suggested a stakeholder or sunset commission to review medical records fees, interoperability, and emerging issues such as third‑party vendors and AI in records handling; she offered to provide draft language for committee consideration.
Committee members asked technical questions about electronic health record interoperability, indexing incoming documents into the receiving provider’s chart, and the practical costs of producing records. Witnesses agreed that interoperability standards have evolved but that many systems do not seamlessly populate records, and that third‑party vendors and contract arrangements create inconsistent practices and fees.
The committee decided not to advance the bill to final passage at this meeting and discussed pursuing a committee or floor amendment that would address fees and interoperability, with stakeholders invited to continue discussions. The hearing was closed pending further drafting of amendment language.
