Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health It topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs state changes to electronic health record access and a narrow delay for sensitive results
Summary
House Bill 5-90 would incorporate federal patient access rules into state insurance law and create limited exceptions (including a 72-hour hold) for certain sensitive test results; insurers and large health systems supported the bill with timing amendments while hospitals warned implementation could raise costs.
Representative Greg Oblander told the committee HB 5-90 aims to modernize electronic health record (EHR) access and interoperability and to create state‑level exceptions to federal information‑blocking rules for certain sensitive results.
Adam Meyer, counsel for Cicero Action, highlighted a proposed exemption to avoid delivering sensitive findings (for example, a new cancer diagnosis) as a push notification without clinician context. "That type of news should be delivered with context from your treating provider," Meyer said, and he flagged pending amendments to clarify effective dates and commissioner authority to extend implementation timelines.
Supporters including the Montana Medical Association and some hospitals said defining EHR and matching federal timelines will help implementation. Blue Cross Blue Shield (Drew Cziok) and other payers generally supported the policy but sought amendments to align state deadlines to CMS timelines and to give the state auditor or commissioner limited extension authority because federal guidance may change near federal compliance dates.
Opponents from Intermountain Health and other hospital systems raised concerns about section 2’s proposed 72‑hour delay for specific test result exemptions, saying it could increase health care costs and create system changes; they favored training and patient education instead of mandated timing delays. Representative Oblander and proponents responded that the bill mirrors federal access requirements but would add a carefully circumscribed timing exception to preserve clinician‑patient conversations for serious findings.
Committee members pressed about who would have access to records (payers under claims rules) and implementation timelines; proponents said the bill does not change HIPAA access rights, only the timing of posting certain sensitive results. The hearing closed with sponsor remarks asking for concurrence after agreement on targeted amendments to address timeline concerns.
