Committee hears sharply divided testimony on bill to restore parents’ access to minors’ medical records

Representative Nellie Nicholl introduced House Bill 377, telling the House Health and Human Services Committee the measure clarifies earlier legislation and would ‘‘make a child's health care information available without charge to the child's parent for examination or provide a copy of the information if requested’’ (Representative Nellie Nicholl). Supporters said the measure is necessary for parents to give informed consent and to protect children.

Jordan Carpenter, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, told the committee ‘‘parents possess this fundamental right which is secured by the US Constitution’’ and argued providers have no federal or state law that requires cutting off parental access at a particular age. ‘‘To provide informed consent, one must be informed,’’ Carpenter said, urging lawmakers to protect parental access.

Multiple parent witnesses recounted cases in which they said hospital portals or institutional policies delayed or blocked access to lab results and other records for adolescents. Jesse Browning said she was surprised to find she initially could not access her newly turned 13‑year‑old’s lab results and described delays that complicated care coordination.

Medical and provider witnesses spoke in opposition. Judy Jackson, director of health information and HIPAA privacy officer at Shodair Children’s Hospital, said release timelines and practices are already complex: her office processes roughly 600 requests for protected health information a month and routinely follows federal rules that allow providers to block access when disclosure could cause harm or when court orders or custody documents restrict parental rights. Jackson warned that the bill’s proposed timing could be ‘‘not feasible or prudent’’ for high‑risk behavioral health, psychotherapy notes, genetics records and other sensitive categories.

Physician groups and emergency and pediatric physicians described clinical risks. Dr. Nathan Allen (Montana chapter, American College of Emergency Physicians) and Dr. Lauren Wilson (American Academy of Pediatrics, Montana Chapter) said the HIPAA privacy rule and federal safety exceptions exist because providers sometimes need to keep information confidential to protect children from abuse or trafficking and to allow patients to disclose sensitive information. ‘‘If we don't create a healthcare environment where children feel that their healthcare providers are safe, those disclosures won't be made,’’ Allen told the committee.

Several witnesses who work with survivors of domestic violence and school counselors said the bill could undermine trust and discourage young people from seeking help. Kelson Young (Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence) and Erica Parish (Montana School Counselor Association) asked the committee to tighten exemptions and give providers more time to evaluate safety before releasing records.

Sponsor Nicholl and proponents said mandatory reporting duties are unaffected and that the bill focuses on access to records rather than changing reporting or child‑protection law. Nicholl repeatedly told members the measure ‘‘is not about access to care; it isn't about abuse or neglect’’ and asked the committee for a due pass.

The committee did not vote on HB 377 at the hearing. Members pressed witnesses on operational questions—how records custodians would detect ongoing investigations, how intake and billing flags work, and how portals differ from formal records requests—but ended the hearing after sponsor closing remarks. The committee will consider the bill in later action.