House hearing on HB 70 spotlights physician opposition to current electronic health records

Representative David Nagel, prime sponsor of HB 70, told the House Committee on Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs that the bill aims to curb harmful effects of current electronic medical records on the doctor–patient relationship and private practice. "I would take the electronic medical record. I would throw it to the bottom of the ocean," Nagel said, arguing EMRs "fail" the sanctity of the relationship between clinician and patient and drive physician burnout.

Nagel said the bill seeks to protect small and private providers — including acupuncturists, chiropractors and massage therapists — from the financial and administrative burdens of EMR systems. He told the committee that enforcement by federal programs like Medicare and Medicaid has effectively coerced clinicians into EMR adoption by tying payments to compliance. "If Medicare" — Nagel said — "they will withhold 15% if you don't comply," a reference to past incentive and penalty programs he cited in testimony.

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield senior director Sabrina Dunlap testified in opposition. She told the committee the bill "is a solution in search of a problem" and that, while insurers do not force providers to use EMRs, restricting how carriers may access data through EMR systems would hinder claims processing and prior authorization. Dunlap said the bill's section limiting permissible EMR data "is at odds with reality" and that the amendment adding prior-authorization data to the allowed dataset improved but did not fully resolve her concerns.

Physician and human-factors researcher Dr. Ruth Colligan supported HB 70 and described evidence she has collected on the burden of EMRs in practice. "For every hour of direct patient contact, a provider spent two hours on the computer," she told the committee, citing diary and time-motion studies. Colligan also gave cost estimates for simple EMR implementations: purchase costs of about $150,000–$170,000; implementation costs near $85,000; and ongoing maintenance of $4,000–$8,000 per provider per year — figures she said place a disproportionate burden on small independent practices.

Representatives on the committee questioned sponsors and witnesses about possible sunset provisions and unintended consequences. Representative Polozov asked whether the law should be temporary to allow federal policy or better IT systems to evolve; Nagel said he was open to limited or time-limited approaches but said the bill is a first step. Representative Lamontagne and others pressed how the bill would work where hospital systems use their own EMRs and how outside providers could access records. Nagel and supporters emphasized phone and personal communication historically served that role and that the bill's aim is to reduce compulsory, expensive EMR compliance for small providers.

Harvard Pilgrim senior policy adviser Peter Braggen and other insurer witnesses argued the bill would be practically unworkable because large swaths of the health care market (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, ERISA/self-insured employers) are federally regulated and unaffected by a state rule. Braggen said roughly 30% of New Hampshire's market is state-regulated carriers and that federal programs remain the dominant driver of EMR adoption and interoperability standards.

The hearing record includes both technical critiques of how EMRs are used for billing and public-health data collection and pleas from small-practice advocates that the state avoid imposing additional costs that could push clinicians out of independent practice. Committee members asked for follow-up fiscal and implementation details; no formal committee vote on HB 70 occurred at the hearing.

Ending: The public hearing on HB 70 closed after substantial testimony for and against the measure; proponents framed it as protection for private practice and patient communication, while insurers warned it could disrupt existing claims and prior-authorizations processes. The sponsor said he would be available for follow-up questions and that recent amendments were intended to address insurer concerns about prior-authorization data needs.