Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health It Interoperability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers weigh patient-access and narrow exemptions to federal information-blocking rules
Summary
House Bill 590 would incorporate the federal patient access rule into state law for state-regulated plans and add limited exceptions to information‑blocking requirements for sensitive test results; providers generally supported access while some health systems said the proposed 72‑hour delay could increase costs or complicate implementation.
Representative Greg Oblander, sponsor of House Bill 590, opened by saying the bill’s purpose is “to help modernize the use and interoperability of electronic health records in Montana.”
Proponents told the Senate Business and Labor Committee the measure incorporates the federal patient access rule into state insurance code, extending patient-facing application programming interfaces (APIs) to state-regulated plans, and creates limited state exceptions to federal information‑blocking rules for sensitive test results.
Adam Meier (spelled in testimony as Meyer), legal counsel for a policy nonprofit, described the exemption: “The purpose there is to allow, to basically prevent somebody from finding out they have cancer or some genetic mutation, that they would get on a push notification on their front,” he said, arguing that certain sensitive results are best delivered in context by a treating provider.
Jean Branscomb, CEO of the Montana Medical Association, and other medical providers supported the bill with a recommended technical amendment to define "electronic health record" in the statute.
Payers and large health systems raised timing and implementation concerns. A representative of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana said the bill was “a great bill” but needed timeline tweaks to match federal CMS deadlines so carriers could rely on CMS guidance for vendor implementation. Kevin Wade of Intermountain Health opposed section 2’s 72‑hour hold for certain test results, telling the committee the requirement “will increase cost of health care” by adding administrative steps and argued training and patient education could address the sponsor’s concerns instead.
Witnesses noted pending amendments to clarify effective dates and give the state insurance commissioner authority to extend deadlines with guardrails so implementation would track federal timing. The committee took questions about Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) protections and whether payers would see results; witnesses said the bill does not change existing law on payer access and focuses on patient-facing timing of result postings.
The hearing closed with the sponsor saying the bill follows CMS guidance and is meant to be proactive as federal rules evolve.
