Rep. Heath Howard says new bill would make privacy the default for sensitive health data
Loading...
Summary
HB 13 17 would require explicit informed written consent, limit disclosures to statute/court order or necessary care coordination, require data minimization and authorize civil enforcement by the attorney general. DHHS recommended minor statutory placement and HIPAA‑alignment edits; disability advocates urged stronger consent and transparency.
Representative Heath Howard introduced HB 13 17 and framed it as a proactive right‑to‑privacy measure for Granite Staters. Howard told the committee the bill would make privacy the default for personally identifiable health, disability and mental‑health data held by state agencies, political subdivisions and their contractors.
Howard: “This bill ensures that state agencies, political subdivisions, and their contractors cannot simply collect, maintain, or disclose personally identifiable data, medical information, disability, or mental health data to third parties without a specific or justified reason.”
Key provisions: Under the bill, disclosure could occur only with informed written consent of the individual or legal representative, where expressly required by state law or court order, or when strictly necessary for coordination of health care and benefits. The bill would also require agencies to limit disclosures to the minimum data necessary and to use de‑identified or anonymized data when practicable. The attorney general would have authority to enforce the statute, including civil penalties and corrective actions.
Testimony and technical review: Vanessa Blaise of the New Hampshire Council on Developmental Disabilities supported the bill and emphasized the disability community’s concern about lack of informed consent and opaque data practices. Abby Rogers, legislative liaison for the DHHS Division of Public Health, said the department is not taking a formal position but raised statutory placement concerns and suggested minor language changes (including adding a missing “or” in the amendment) and alignment with HIPAA; she said DHHS met with the sponsor and believes many suggested edits are reflected in the amendment.
Committee discussion: Representatives questioned whether the bill duplicated existing standards (including federal protections such as HIPAA) and how the amendment changes statutory placement from RSA 1:26 to RSA 3:32 to avoid ambiguity; the sponsor said the bill goes beyond federal rules and is intended to be a state‑level safeguard against bulk data purchases and broad sharing with AI vendors and contractors.
Next steps: The public hearing on HB 13 17 closed after technical clarifications and an offered amendment. Members asked staff to circulate the amendment and suggested committee counsel and the sponsor coordinate with DHHS on statutory placement and HIPAA alignment before committee action.
