Modifies provisions for providing copies of medical records
HB 1226 revises Missouri law governing access to copies of medical records by repealing and reenacting section 191.227, RSMo. The bill requires physicians, chiropractors, hospitals, dentists, and other licensed providers to furnish a patient’s health history and treatment records upon written request by the patient or an authorized representative, subject to existing therapeutic limitations and payment of specified fees. It also clarifies that the requested records include a statement when no responsive record exists.
The bill updates the fee schedule for search, retrieval, copying, postage, and notary services, and adds a specific electronic-records provision. If records are stored electronically and can be produced electronically, providers may charge the lesser of the statutory fees or a flat total amount, and electronic records must be provided in a universally accessible format. The bill also requires annual inflation-based adjustments to the fee amounts, with the Department of Health and Senior Services posting the updated fees each year.
HB 1226 would change the statutory framework for medical-records access in Missouri by replacing the existing section 191.227 with a revised version that modernizes fee rules, electronic delivery requirements, and annual inflation adjustments. It also expands and clarifies who may obtain records after a patient’s death, including executors, administrators, agents under certain powers of attorney, and specified family members or fiduciaries when no personal representative has been appointed. In addition, the bill prohibits providers and facilities from charging fees for medical or mental health records requested to support applications for certain benefits, including workers’ compensation, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, Medicare, and veterans’ benefits.
The available context suggests generally favorable treatment of the bill, or at least no recorded opposition in the provided materials. The bill’s caption indicates a technical and consumer-access oriented update to medical-records rules, which typically draws support from patients, advocates, and representatives of benefit applicants. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented debate or recorded vote sentiment to indicate broader controversy.
The main points of potential contention are the fee structure and the scope of free record access. Providers may be concerned about limits on what they can charge for search, retrieval, copying, off-site storage retrieval, and electronic production, especially where records are maintained in electronic systems or require special duplication. Another possible issue is the expanded access for deceased patients’ records and the requirement to release records for benefit applications without charge, which could raise privacy, administrative, and cost concerns for providers, while being supported by patients, families, attorneys, and benefit claimants.