Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health It topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsors press EMR companies over ‘information blocking’ in nursing home records bill (HB 8 12)
Summary
A bill to strengthen requirements that electronic medical record vendors share nursing‑home patient data drew support from hospitals and real‑time analytics vendors and opposition from EHR firms that said the proposal creates an unnecessary private right of action and conflicts with federal rules.
House Bill 8 12 seeks to tighten rules governing electronic medical record (EMR) vendors and their obligations to share nursing‑home patient records and to create a limited private cause of action against a vendor that blocks access. Sponsor Delegate Pam Cazzoni said the 2023 law prohibiting information blocking left enforcement gaps and that nursing homes rely on third‑party analytics — such as Real Time Medical Systems (RTMS) and the state Health Information Exchange (CRISP) — to identify clinical problems early and reduce hospitalizations.
Physicians and vendors supporting the bill told the committee the program identifies clinical signals — for example, lack of bowel movements after surgery that can predict sepsis — and that timely access produced thousands of interventions in Maryland nursing homes. Supporters said EMR vendors have used technical obstacles (for example CAPTCHAs, multi‑step logins and throttling) to impede automated or third‑party access, limiting the effectiveness of analytics that can prevent costly hospital admissions.
PointClickCare, the leading long‑term‑care EHR vendor, opposed the bill in its current form. Company representatives said the bill would create a broad and vague right of action allowing “indirect” claimants to sue without alleging concrete harm and that the proposal conflicts with the federal 21st Century Cures Act (referred to in testimony as the “20 first Century Cures Act”) and its exceptions. PointClickCare also warned the bill could raise cybersecurity and privacy risks and would prompt multiple defensive lawsuits, adding costs to providers and vendors.
Supporters offered a sponsor amendment to narrow the private cause of action to EMR companies only and to require immediate sharing rather than “routine” sharing. Committee members asked about whether federal enforcement should be relied on and whether the proposed state remedies might conflict with federal law. Proponents said federal enforcement has been slow and state action is needed. Opponents said the bill should be revised to avoid duplicative or conflicting enforcement and to clarify standing and harms.
Ending: The committee did not vote. Sponsors and PointClickCare signaled willingness to continue drafting and to consider amendments to address standing, enforcement specifics and cybersecurity concerns.
