Committee adopts amendment and refers parental bill of rights to state government finance committee after partisan roll call

House File 22, a proposal described by its sponsor as the "Parent Bill of Rights," moved forward in the Minnesota House Health Finance and Policy Committee on Friday after the committee adopted an amendment clarifying parental access to minors’ health records and the exam room and then voted to refer the bill to the Committee of State Government Finance and Policy.

Representative Gilman, the bill’s author, presented the legislation and an A5 amendment the committee adopted by voice vote. The A5 changes, as described to the committee, modify when a parent may access a minor’s health records, require providers to allow a parent to be in the examination room when the minor is receiving health services (with enumerated exceptions), and require notice to parents about standard questions the provider will ask the minor during a visit. The amendment preserved existing exceptions allowing a minor to consent to services when the minor is living apart and financially independent, married, or the parent of a child, and it excluded examinations involving suspected abuse from the parental-presence requirement.

Supporters who testified said the measure restores and clarifies parents’ decision-making authority. Matt Flanders, legislative and policy director for Citizens Council for Health Freedom, told the committee his organization supported provisions that ensure parental access to medical records, specimen-collection consent and the exam room, and called parents the proper decision-makers for children’s healthcare. Several private citizens and advocacy groups also testified in support, describing situations in which parents said they were excluded from medical conversations and urging a clear statutory rule.

Opponents and health professionals expressed concerns about confidentiality and care for adolescents. Wendy Underwood, deputy commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Health, told the committee the department had "privacy concerns" and said confidentiality can affect an adolescent’s willingness to seek care for sensitive issues, including substance use, mental health and sexual-health questions. Public witnesses described both personal stories in support of parental involvement and, in one case, a witness who testified against the bill describing potential harms to LGBTQ youth.

Committee members raised numerous technical and policy questions during the discussion, including whether the bill would affect newborn screening and how the proposal aligns with federal privacy law (HIPAA) and existing state statutes allowing minors in certain circumstances to consent to medical treatment. Representative Gilman said emergency-treatment rules and current statutes on minor consent would not be changed by the bill and that some clauses would be addressed in further committees.

After debate the committee adopted the A5 amendment by voice vote. Later the committee voted by roll call to refer the bill as amended to the Committee of State Government Finance and Policy; the roll call was 11 yes, 10 no. The committee clerk recorded the following yes votes: Chair Backer; Vice Chair Nadeau; Representative DePauw; Representative Franson; Representative Gilman; Representative Knudson; Representative Perryman; Representative Rapinski; Representative Schumacher; Representative Van Binsbergen; Representative Zalesnikar. Recorded no votes were: Representative Bierman; Representative Bonner; Representative Carroll; Representative Elkins; Representative Hemmingsen Yeager; Representative Hewitt; Representative Liebling; Representative Mahmoud; Representative Purcell; Representative Breyer.

The A5 amendment and the referral advance the bill to a subsequent committee where members said they would address outstanding legal and implementation concerns raised during testimony, including HIPAA interaction, newborn screening practice and provider responsibilities.