Senate committee hears bill to affirm patient ownership of medical records; sponsors remove proposed statewide repository

Senate Bill 250, presented by Sen. Roberta Lang in the Nevada Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, would shift legal ownership of medical records to patients and direct the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to take steps to facilitate patient access to records. At the hearing in Carson City and Las Vegas, proponents emphasized interoperability and patient control; opponents raised privacy, cost and operational concerns.

Sponsor explanation and amendment: Sen. Roberta Lang said the draft bill affirms patient ownership of health records and enhances privacy protections. The sponsor reported an amendment removed the earlier plan to create a statewide electronic repository and added a new section requiring the DHHS director to submit quarterly progress reports to the Senate Interim Health and Human Services Committee on implementation efforts. “There is no government repository. It is out of the bill,” Lang told the committee.

Presenters and rationale: Technical and industry presenters described the potential clinical and system benefits of standardized, structured electronic health records (EHRs) that patients can control. Paul Bamford (EISC Lab Data Automation) discussed standardized, instrument-generated data feeds and interoperability; Shrey Kapoor (MedPsycho) described patient empowerment through consolidated records and left the hearing early to catch a flight; Tom Zumtobel (Teachers Health Trust) described efforts to connect multiple electronic records systems and gave an example showing long delays between abnormal testing and treatment. Zumtobel said, referring to the local experience, that it often took about 16 weeks from an abnormal mammogram to first treatment and argued better, real‑time access to records could shorten that delay.

Support and neutral testimony: Several health information and employer‑sponsored trust witnesses supported patient access while cautioning about a centralized repository. Healthy Nevada (the state’s nonprofit health information exchange) and Culinary Health Fund said they support patient ownership and interoperability and cautioned that practical, secure architectures and voluntary participation have been important in existing statewide exchange work. Teachers Health Trust, which described pilot work integrating multiple EHR systems, said patient ownership would increase accountability and continuity of care.

Opposition and concerns: The Association of Health Information Outsourcing Services (AHIOS) opposed the bill as written, citing broad language in the earlier draft that could expose protected health information to undefined third parties and raise costs for secure transmission. Nevada Families for Freedom and other witnesses urged caution about any government repository or unintended sharing of sensitive information. The city of Henderson expressed concern about specific operational impacts on emergency medical services and requested clarifications for first responders and municipal providers.

Operational and legal questions: Committee members asked how the policy would work in practice—how records would be transferred, how providers would manage the technical requirements, and whether immediate release of results (for example, life‑altering lab results) should be time‑limited or require clinician contact first. Presenters described a variety of technical models (apps, secure file exchange, health information exchanges) and said the bill’s amended language removed the repository mandate and instead created a process for DHHS to report progress and work with stakeholders.

Outcome and next steps: The sponsor noted the amendment’s removal of the repository and the addition of a reporting requirement in section 19 (quarterly reporting by DHHS) to allow ongoing stakeholder input. No committee vote on final passage was taken at the hearing. Proponents and neutral stakeholders requested continuation of stakeholder conversations to clarify privacy protections, operational timelines and cost allocation before the bill advances.

Ending: Committee members and witnesses agreed patient access to records is an important objective, but they differed on approach and timing. The sponsor said DHHS reporting and continued stakeholder engagement would guide implementation details.