Experts debate H.160 right-to-repair bill for medical devices at Vermont committee hearing

The Vermont House Committee on Commerce & Economic Development heard competing testimony March 19 on H.160, a proposed bill to require manufacturers to provide parts, tools, software and documentation to third‑party repairers of medical devices.

Justin Leventhal, senior policy analyst at the American Consumer Institute, told the committee that H.160 would “force a broad mandate that risks patient harm” by requiring manufacturers to share access information without establishing standards for who is qualified to use it. He said the bill would broaden cybersecurity exposure by making codes and passwords more widely available and that unauthorized repairs of high‑risk equipment such as ventilators and defibrillators could imperil patients.

Supporters of broader repair access pushed back. Nathan Proctor, senior director of the Right to Repair campaign at Public Interest Research Group, said Vermont hospitals already use in‑house teams and independent service organizations to fix equipment and that manufacturers sometimes restrict access to service keys and manuals. Proctor cited a 2018 Food and Drug Administration servicing report — which he said examined millions of device failure records — and argued the report did not identify systemic safety problems with non‑manufacturer servicing. He also cited PIRG survey results showing that many biomedical technicians report being denied service information and that diagnostic restrictions can delay patient care.

The two witnesses also offered differing views on cybersecurity. Leventhal said expanding access to repair information would create another avenue for attackers and increase the number of people able to obtain sensitive system access. Proctor argued that most malicious actors target networked vulnerabilities and that giving hospitals more technical access could help them better secure devices.

Committee members questioned both witnesses about training, certification, liability and rural access to service. The chair asked whether the training H.160 contemplates would effectively make a technician an authorized provider; Leventhal answered that the bill, as written, distinguishes between manufacturer‑authorized providers and technicians who merely receive training and does not set ongoing standards. Proctor said technical ability and manufacturer authorization are separate matters and maintained that manufacturers sometimes use access controls to limit competition even when technicians are capable.

Members discussed liability arrangements and possible language changes — for example, qualification requirements for third‑party repairers or indemnification provisions — and noted the bill had missed the legislature’s crossover deadline. The chair said the committee could revisit the question next year and asked witnesses to refine language and evidence for future consideration.

The committee recessed and said it would return at 10:00 a.m. to hear further testimony.