Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hospitals warn parental‑access bill could disable portals; advocates push for redacted portal logins
Summary
Testimony on HB1378 divided hospitals and patient‑rights advocates: hospitals and medical societies warned including patient portals in the statutory definition of medical records could force providers to turn off portals because many cannot technically segregate legally protected adolescent care; proponents urged portal logins that redact protected categories (substance use, sexual health, contraception) so parents can access non‑protected information.
The Senate Health and Human Services Committee spent several hours on House Bill 1378, a proposal to require parental access to a minor’s electronic medical records — including records available via patient portals. Testimony split sharply between hospitals and clinicians who warned of legal and technical pitfalls, and parents and advocates who said portals currently block access and that redaction would be a practical fix.
Ben Bradley of the New Hampshire Hospital Association told the committee that parents already may obtain medical records by request under RSA 332‑i, but that patient portals are a separate commercial user interface not designed in some systems to segregate legally protected adolescent care (for example, substance‑use treatment, certain sexual‑health services and some behavioral‑health services). Bradley said that if the statute defines the portal as an official medical record without accommodating technical limits or confidentiality carve‑outs, some providers could be forced to disable portals or otherwise lose the ability to protect adolescent confidentiality required by state and federal law.
Dartmouth Health’s Courtney Tanner and the New Hampshire Medical Society reiterated the point and asked for clear exemptions in drafting to preserve minors’ confidentiality where the law permits it, and to ensure protective orders and interstate orders remain enforceable. Several parent advocates and individuals with lived experience supported the bill’s aim: they told senators that many practices cut portal access at age 12 and that paper requests or ad‑hoc record requests are a barrier for families who want timely oversight. Melissa Blazak (Rebuild NH) summarized proponents’ approach: provide parents portal access but implement technological redaction for the specific categories already protected under state and federal law rather than eliminate those carve‑outs.
Why it matters: the debate centers on two legitimate policy goals that can clash—protecting adolescents’ access to some confidential services while ensuring parents have meaningful, timely access to most of a child’s health information.
What’s next: multiple witnesses offered to work with the committee on technical language; the transcript indicates substantial support for compromise amendments that would preserve confidentiality where required while enabling parental access for non‑exempt information.
