House Bill 123 creates a new criminal offense in North Carolina for the willful destruction, alteration, falsification, or omission of information from medical records by health care providers, and in some cases other individuals involved in the conduct. The bill defines “health care provider” broadly to include licensed, certified, or credentialed individuals under specified health and health-care facility statutes, and defines “medical record” as personal information relating to a person’s physical or mental condition, medical history, or medical treatment.
The bill establishes three main criminal penalties. A health care provider who falsifies or destroys records to conceal a medical error, abuse, or neglect that caused serious injury or death to a patient would commit a Class H felony. If the conduct is intended to conceal any other material fact related to a potential claim or cause of action arising from medical services, it would be a Class A1 misdemeanor. Offering or receiving money or other value in exchange for altering or destroying records for either prohibited purpose would be a Class I felony. The bill also states that existing civil remedies are not affected and that the new law applies only to offenses committed on or after December 1, 2025.
HB123 would add a new section to Article 52 of Chapter 14 of the North Carolina General Statutes, creating specific criminal liability for record tampering in the health care context. It would expand the state’s criminal code to address concealment of medical errors, abuse, neglect, and other facts tied to potential medical claims, while preserving any stronger penalties available under other laws and leaving civil lawsuits and remedies intact. The act would take effect December 1, 2025, and apply prospectively to conduct occurring on or after that date.
The available legislative record suggests generally favorable treatment of the bill, as reflected by its committee substitute favorable status and continued movement through the legislative process. No committee transcript or recorded vote information is provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, opposition, or amendment controversy in the supplied materials. The bill’s framing indicates a policy goal of protecting patients and the integrity of medical records, which is likely to have broad public-safety appeal.
The main potential points of contention are the breadth of the conduct covered and the criminal penalties imposed on health care providers. The bill reaches not only direct falsification but also directing others to alter records, conspiring to do so, and exchanging money or value for record destruction, which could raise concerns about overbreadth or prosecutorial discretion. Another possible issue is the distinction between felony and misdemeanor treatment depending on whether the concealment relates to serious injury or death versus other potential claims, as well as how “material fact” and “medical error” would be interpreted in practice. No specific opposing viewpoint is documented in the provided record.