House floor rejects substitute bill aimed at improving patient access to medical records

SALT LAKE CITY — Lawmakers debated for over an hour on Feb. 16 about a proposal to improve patients’ access to medical records across hospital systems. The chamber ultimately voted down the second substitute to House Bill 239, 28–41.

Representative Ward, sponsor of HB 239, framed the bill as an effort to ensure patients can access their own records across the state’s four largest hospital systems (Intermountain, University of Utah, HCA, and Steward) within about 30 months. He said the bill asks the Department of Health to work with hospitals to find a technical solution — which might be a centralized exchange, improvements to an existing Health Information Exchange called CHI, or interoperable direct connections — and to honor patients’ choices when they prefer not to have data shared.

Opponents raised cybersecurity, privacy and subpoena concerns. Representative Stratton said a centralized repository would be a large target for breaches and urged stronger safeguards; Representative Brammer and others asked whether subpoena processes and patient notification rules would change if data were centralized. Representative Thurston, with health-information experience, argued the current system is inadequate and that the bill forces cooperation among systems that have not voluntarily standardized their data sharing.

A second substitute reduced the bill’s fiscal note and clarified some provisions, but on the floor the motion failed: “Second substitute HB 239 failing to pass this body with 28 yay votes and 41 nay votes,” the clerk announced.

What happens next: With the substitute defeated on the floor, the bill will be referred to staff for filing; advocates and hospitals will likely continue talks about interoperability and patient access outside statutory compulsion.

Representative Ward summarized his intent: “A patient has the right to their own information when and where they need it,” and urged future cooperation among hospital systems.

Note: The floor discussion repeatedly referenced CHI (the state's health information exchange) as existing but underused; sponsor said CHI can be an option but did not require a centralized model in the bill text.