Tennessee House Bill HB1639

Tennessee 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/5/24
• Refer: 1/10/24
• Refer: 1/30/24
• Refer: 2/7/24
• Engrossed: 2/22/24
• Enrolled: 4/2/24
• Passed: 4/22/24
• Chaptered: 5/1/24

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 63 and Title 68, relative to medical records.

Impact

Once enacted, HB1639 will significantly impact the management of hospital records in Tennessee. By clearly defining the rights of patients and their representatives to obtain medical records, the bill intends to establish a more transparent and efficient process. The legislation also acknowledges situations where patients are incapacitated or deceased, designating specific individuals as authorized representatives who can request access on behalf of the patient. This change is expected to facilitate better communication and continuity of care, particularly in critical or emergency scenarios.

Summary

House Bill 1639 seeks to amend the Tennessee Code Annotated, specifically Title 63 and Title 68, to address the ownership and accessibility of medical records held by hospitals. The bill stipulates that hospital records remain the property of the hospitals but clarifies the conditions under which patients or their authorized representatives can access these records. The proposed legislation aims to streamline the process through which patients can request their medical records, thus enhancing patient rights regarding their healthcare information.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB1639 has been largely positive, particularly among healthcare providers and patient advocacy groups that emphasize the importance of patient autonomy and rights. Supporters argue that the bill aligns with federal regulations and promotes a more patient-centered approach within healthcare systems. However, there may be concerns from certain stakeholders about how the implementation of such provisions could affect hospital administrative processes and the security of sensitive patient information.

Contention

While the bill is generally favored, there have been discussions regarding potential contention points related to the logistics of record request fulfillment and the swift identification of authorized representatives, which could burden hospital administrative staff. Critics are concerned that the terminology used in the bill may lead to ambiguities that complicate compliance. Despite this, the consensus appears to support the essence of the bill as a progressive step forward in enhancing patient rights and access.