SB 138 revises New Hampshire law governing access to medical records, with a particular focus on requests made by health care providers. The bill states that medical information in a provider’s possession, or held by a third-party records vendor, is the property of the patient and may be copied by the patient or an authorized requestor under HIPAA. It also defines who may act as a requestor, including a personal representative, a health care provider, a person with a valid power of attorney, or the patient’s attorney.
The bill sets new limits on what may be charged for copies of medical records and related services. Electronic copies are capped at a reasonable rate not to exceed $50, while paper copies are limited to a page-based fee schedule. If a request specifically asks for redactions of sensitive information such as HIV status, substance use, mental health, or genetic testing, the requestor may be charged for the labor involved, up to $25 per hour. The bill also requires records to be provided in electronic form if they are stored electronically, and generally requires fulfillment within 30 days, with records not timely produced to be provided at no cost. When the request comes from the patient’s health care provider, the transfer must be completed within 14 days and at no cost.
In addition to the records-access provisions, SB 138 creates a legislative committee to study access to medical records in New Hampshire. The committee is tasked with examining cost, access, and transparency issues and must report recommendations by November 1, 2025. The study committee is made up of two House members and one senator, with standard legislative mileage reimbursement.
The bill’s impact is to amend RSA 332-I and establish new statutory rules for medical-record production, pricing, format, and deadlines, while also creating a temporary study body to evaluate broader access issues. It affects health care providers, patients, attorneys, personal representatives, and records vendors by tightening timelines and limiting fees, especially for provider-to-provider transfers.
The overall sentiment appears generally favorable toward improving access and reducing delays, as reflected by the Senate’s concurrence vote of 15-8. At the same time, the vote indicates some opposition, likely tied to concerns about cost, administrative burden, or the bill’s mandated turnaround times and fee limits. The main point of contention is the balance between patient access and the operational costs imposed on providers and records custodians, especially for rapid, no-cost transfers and redaction work.
SB 138 amends RSA 332-I to establish statewide rules for medical-record requests, including fee caps, electronic-format delivery requirements, a 30-day general deadline, and a 14-day no-cost deadline when the requestor is the patient’s health care provider. It also creates a temporary legislative study committee to examine access, cost, and transparency in medical records and to recommend further legislation. The bill directly affects patients, health care providers, attorneys, personal representatives, and third-party medical-record vendors.
The bill appears to have received mixed but generally supportive consideration. The Senate concurred by a 15-8 vote, suggesting a majority favored the measure’s access and transparency goals while a substantial minority opposed it. The available context does not include committee testimony, but the vote pattern indicates support for reducing barriers to record access alongside concern about the practical burdens on providers and vendors.
The central controversy is whether the bill goes too far in regulating the cost and timing of medical-record production. Supporters are likely focused on patient access, transparency, and faster provider-to-provider transfers, while opponents may be concerned about compliance costs, staffing burdens, and the impact of mandatory no-cost or low-cost production deadlines. The redaction fee provision and the requirement to provide electronic records in electronic form may also be points of debate for providers and records contractors.