AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 11-1-52, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO PROVIDE THAT HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS AND FACILITIES SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (HIPAA) IN CHARGING FEES FOR PROVIDING AN INDIVIDUAL'S PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION TO THE INDIVIDUAL; TO PROVIDE THAT HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS AND FACILITIES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE FEE SCHEDULE IN THIS SECTION IN CHARGING FEES FOR PHOTOCOPYING AND PROVIDING AN INDIVIDUAL'S PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION TO A THIRD PARTY; TO SET THE MAXIMUM AMOUNTS OF FEES THAT HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS AND FACILITIES MAY CHARGE FOR SENDING AN INDIVIDUAL'S PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION ELECTRONICALLY TO OR REPRODUCING THE INFORMATION IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT FOR A THIRD PARTY; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
HB476 amends Mississippi’s medical-records fee statute, Section 11-1-52, to align certain charges with HIPAA and to set specific maximum fees that health care providers and facilities may charge when furnishing an individual’s protected health information. The bill distinguishes between records provided to the patient or personal representative and records sent to a third party at the patient’s direction or under a HIPAA authorization. It preserves the existing photocopy fee structure for paper records, while also adding explicit limits for electronic records, including a flat $30 charge when records are already maintained electronically and are sent or reproduced electronically for a third party, plus limited pass-through costs for media and postage.
The bill also retains and restates other existing limits in the section, including charges for retrieving archived records, deposition-related physician charges, and medical record affidavits. It specifies that covered entities must comply with HIPAA and its implementing regulations when charging for records requested by the individual or personal representative, and it takes effect July 1, 2026.
HB476 would amend Section 11-1-52 of the Mississippi Code to impose clearer statewide limits on what medical providers, hospitals, nursing homes, and other medical facilities may charge for copying and transmitting protected health information. The practical effect is to cap fees for electronic production of records, especially when records are already maintained electronically, and to standardize charges for paper copies, postage, archive retrieval, affidavits, and related record-production services. Patients, personal representatives, and third parties receiving records under patient authorization would be the primary parties affected, while providers would be required to adjust billing practices to the new statutory ceilings.
The available voting history suggests strong support for the bill: it passed the House unanimously, 116-0. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate significant opposition. The overall sentiment appears favorable, likely reflecting a consensus that medical-record access fees should be limited and more predictable for patients and authorized requesters.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials, and the unanimous House vote suggests little overt disagreement. The main policy issue inherent in the bill is the balance between patient access to records and the ability of providers to recover administrative costs for copying, converting, mailing, and retrieving records from archives. Any potential concerns would likely center on whether the fee caps adequately cover provider costs, especially for converting non-electronic records into electronic format, but no opposing arguments are recorded here.