Is third time the charm for New Hampshire? Lawmakers in New Hampshire have been trying to pass legislation that gives patients control over who sees their medical records. Under HB 1649, patients can request an audit of who has accessed their electronic medical records.
Note that the audit part is particular to EMRs and EHRs. In the paper world, physicians were able to take sections of the patient record to share with specialists. With electronic records, entire patient histories are transferred, according to Rep. Cindy Rosenwald (D-Nashua), who chairs the House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee.
I want to stop here for a moment because I’m curious if this is really true. Are entire patient histories transferred? Is this a function of the way the EMR or EHR system is configured? It doesn’t really change the need for the legislation, but I was wondering if physicians could determine what parts of the electronic record a specialist could see. EMR and EHR vendors would be the ones to answer this question about patient history data.
The second time the bill was introduced, the House approved it but the Senate killed it. Providers objected to the audit portion of the bill, saying that producing data showing who saw what and how the information was used would be expensive and resource intensive. The bill was adjusted and HB 1649 has narrowed the scope of the audit.
Again, I want to stop here for a moment and ask whether EMR and EHR systems can easily produce those types of audit reports.
Supposedly, this is the first bill of its kind in the country. If that’s true and it passes, other states may follow suit. Before that happens, however, legislators should determine what the capabilities of EMR and EHR systems are with respect to what data is shared and audit trails. It would go a long way in shaping what these patient empowerment bills should look like.
