AN ACT Relating to strengthening patients' rights regarding their health care information by promoting access to information and providing enforcement protections for the appropriate use of the information;
SB 5254 is a Washington health-information privacy and access bill that strengthens patients’ rights to obtain, inspect, and authorize disclosure of their health care records. It adds a new section to chapter 70.02 RCW and amends multiple existing provisions governing access to medical records, disclosure authorizations, response timelines, fees, and enforcement. The bill requires health care providers and facilities to honor patient authorizations, provide copies or assistance in obtaining records, and respond to patient requests within specified timeframes, while also allowing reasonable fees tied to actual costs rather than per-page charges.
The bill also revises definitions and disclosure rules for a wide range of sensitive records, including mental health records, sexually transmitted disease information, and records involving correctional settings and public health reporting. It clarifies when records may be withheld, when disclosures may be made without authorization, and how requests must be handled for patients, personal representatives, attorneys, advocates, guardians, and other authorized recipients. It further creates a private right of action for violations, allowing courts to order compliance and award damages, attorney’s fees, and costs, while specifying that violations are not consumer protection act violations.
SB 5254 would materially change Washington’s health-record access framework by tightening provider obligations, limiting certain fees, and expanding enforceable patient rights under chapter 70.02 RCW. It affects health care providers, hospitals, clinics, mental health agencies, correctional health systems, public health officials, insurers, and third-party vendors that handle records or disclosures. The bill’s new enforcement provisions and revised timelines would likely increase compliance requirements and administrative procedures for record production and authorization handling.
The available voting history suggests the bill had at least some support in the Senate Committee on Health & Long-Term Care, where a first substitute version passed 6-4 on a do-pass motion. No committee transcript is available here, so the broader discussion cannot be directly assessed, but the vote indicates a divided committee rather than unanimous agreement. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed favorably by a majority of the committee as a patient-rights and transparency measure.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s limits on what providers may charge, the requirement to respond within set deadlines, and the creation of a private cause of action with attorney’s fees and damages. Providers and facilities may view these provisions as increasing administrative burden and compliance risk, while patient advocates likely support them as necessary to improve access and accountability. Additional sensitivity surrounds the bill’s treatment of mental health, sexually transmitted disease, and correctional-health records, where the bill balances privacy, public health, and safety concerns against expanded disclosure rights.