Bill Description: Senate Bill 1395 would regulate how much a health care provider may charge for medical records. It also would require providers to release records free of charge under certain circumstances, and to provide records within a certain timeframe.
Rating: -2
NOTE: Senate Bill 1395 is related to Senate Bill 1353, introduced earlier this session. While the regulations imposed are different, the underlying problem of government price fixing and increased intrusion into the market remains the same.
NOTE: The Senate Amendment to Senate Bill 1395 adjusted the fee caps up slightly, but it did not alter the underlying problems with the bill. The analysis has been updated to reflect the changes, but the rating has not changed.
Does it give government any new, additional, or expanded power to prohibit, restrict, or regulate activities in the free market? Conversely, does it eliminate or reduce government intervention in the market?
Senate Bill 1395 would create Chapter 73, Title 39, Idaho Code, to regulate how much a health care provider may charge for medical records. It also would require providers to release records free of charge under certain circumstances, and to provide records within a certain timeframe.
For paper records, the maximum allowable charge would be "a search fee of thirty dollars ($30.00); sixty cents (60¢) per page for the first forty (40) pages and thirty-six cents (36¢) per page for each additional page; the actual reproduction costs of x-rays or other medical records that are difficult or expensive to duplicate; or the actual costs of sending the records to the patient of the person authorized by the patient."
For electronic records, the maximum allowable charge would be "a search fee of thirty dollars ($30.00); thirty cents (30¢) per page for the first forty (40) pages and eighteen cents (18¢) per page for each additional page; the actual reproduction costs of x-rays or other medical records that are difficult or expensive to duplicate; the actual costs of sending the records to the patient or the person authorized by the patient; or if the request is fulfilled within ten (10) days and the records are provided in a format that may be immediately viewed or downloaded, an additional fee of twenty dollars ($20.00)."
The bill would also limit the "entire fee" charged for electronic records to $175 "regardless of the number of pages provided or the original format of the original medical records."
The bill would also require health care providers to provide "one (1) free copy of a patient's medical records, including mental health records, if requested by a patient, former patient, patient's attorney, legal representative, or third-party service authorized to receive records, for a qualified claim or appeal for benefits under any provision of the social security act."
The bill says that "for a subsequent copy of the patient's medical records in one (1) calendar year, provided that no additional medical services have been rendered, a health care provider may charge the allowable rate pursuant to subsection (2) of this section."
The bill also requires that all requests for medical records be fulfilled within 30 days.
Under this law, health care providers will be required to prepare and send significant quantities of records, free of charge, even though preparing and sending records is anything but free. It requires significant time and money, which this bill will prevent providers from recouping.
Government should not force providers to work for free or impose arbitrary price caps and timeline on private businesses. If a business charges too much or takes too long, the proper remedy is for its clients to seek market alternatives, not for the government to meddle in the process.
(-1)
Does it violate the principles of federalism by increasing federal authority, yielding to federal blandishments, or incorporating changeable federal laws into Idaho statutes or rules? Examples include citing federal code without noting as it is written on a certain date, using state resources to enforce federal law, and refusing to support and uphold the Tenth Amendment. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the principles of federalism?
In addition to the many problems outlined above, Senate Bill 1395 also says that the fees charged "shall be the lesser of the fees allowed pursuant to the provisions of 45 CFR 164.524(c)(4)" or the amounts outlined above.
At a minimum, Idaho law should never incorporate federal law into Idaho code without limiting it by date. More fundamentally, Idaho should not use its police powers to enforce federal law, especially federal law that deals with matters outside of the enumerated powers found in the U.S. Constitution.
We noted above that government should not force providers to work for free or impose arbitrary price caps and timeline regulations on private businesses. This is doubly true for the federal government when its regulations are not just intolerably burdensome but also blatantly unconstitutional.
(-1)
