The Medical Records Access Fairness Act of 2026 would amend the HITECH Act to limit when health care providers may charge individuals for access to their own protected health information. In general, a provider could only impose a fee if the request is for a duplicate copy of information already provided in the same calendar year, or for a non-electronic copy of information that is already available to the individual at no cost through the provider’s online portal. The bill also allows an individual to ask that a provider transmit a copy, summary, or explanation of the individual’s protected health information to another health care provider in any form and format that is readily usable by the receiving provider.
The bill further clarifies that nothing in the new subsection requires a provider to furnish records at no cost to an individual’s attorney. It directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue or amend regulations within six months to implement the new requirements, and it would apply to requests made 180 days after enactment. Overall, the measure is aimed at making it easier and less expensive for patients to obtain and share their medical records while preserving some provider ability to charge in limited circumstances.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would amend section 13405 of the HITECH Act and affect the federal rules governing access to protected health information under HIPAA-related record access provisions. It would constrain health care providers’ ability to charge patients for copies of their records, summaries, or explanations, especially where the information has already been provided or is available electronically at no cost. It would also require HHS to update regulations to conform to the new statutory standard, affecting providers, patients, family caregivers, and potentially health information exchange practices.
Sentiment
The bill’s title and structure suggest a generally pro-patient, access-expanding approach, with the goal of reducing barriers and costs associated with obtaining medical records. Because there are no committee transcripts or votes provided, there is no recorded debate or roll-call evidence of opposition or support in the available materials. The available context therefore indicates a straightforward consumer-access measure with an emphasis on fairness and affordability.
Contention
The main policy tension in the bill is between patient access and provider billing practices. Supporters would likely favor the bill for limiting fees and improving portability of medical information, while providers may be concerned about lost administrative revenue, operational burdens, and the scope of the no-cost requirement. The bill also draws a boundary around attorney requests, signaling that lawmakers were attentive to preventing unintended free disclosure in litigation-related contexts. Another possible point of contention is the requirement that records be transmitted in a form and format usable by another provider, which could raise implementation questions for health systems and electronic record vendors.