Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Health witnesses tell House committee HB 162’s portal‑segmentation mandate is operationally infeasible
Loading...
Summary
At a third hearing on House Bill 162, hospital and health‑information witnesses urged removal of a section that would require broad segmentation of electronic medical records, saying current EMR systems cannot reliably isolate sensitive adolescent care across a patient's record without risking care coordination or violating privacy rules.
The Ohio House Health Committee held a third hearing on House Bill 162, which would address parental access to adolescent patient portals. Witnesses representing children's hospitals and health information professionals said they support the bill’s goals but urged the removal of a provision — referred to in testimony as "Section B" (lines 21–43) — that would require providers who have ever cared for a minor to provide annual information and to enable parental access in perpetuity.
Sarah Kincaid, vice president of the Ohio Children’s Hospital Association, told the committee that hospitals support ensuring parents and guardians can access information allowed by law but that Section B "goes far beyond the intended goal" and would create complex, burdensome obligations for providers. "Frustrations raised concerning guardian access to online patient portals for adolescents are deeply concerning, and we agree this needs to be remedied," Kincaid said, but she asked lawmakers to remove the section and work with stakeholders on operational solutions.
Lauren Manson, senior executive director of the Ohio Health Information Management Association, said the technical task the bill contemplates is not feasible with current electronic medical record (EMR) systems used across the state. "There is no tool, AI or otherwise, that can be applied to the many, many different electronic medical record systems that exist in Ohio's health provider settings to segment data in a way that would make this bill possible," Manson testified. She said patient information that can be relevant to future care — for example, pregnancy history or past substance‑abuse treatment — is documented throughout a patient's record and cannot be reliably isolated to a single visit or entry.
Members pressed witnesses on whether providers could instead notify parents when access changes or whether records could be separately maintained for certain legally protected services. Witnesses said some notification options are likely operationally feasible (letters, electronic notices) but reiterated that segmenting or creating separate records would conflict with best practices and could harm patient safety if clinical data were fragmented.
Committee members urged a collaborative approach with vendors and providers to find practical fixes. Witnesses said health information management professionals represent those who must operationalize the law but do not themselves control vendor software development. The transcript records no formal committee vote on HB 162 during this hearing; Chair Schmidt closed the hearing and the committee adjourned.
