Texas Senate Bill SB646

Texas 2009 - 81st Regular

• Out of Senate Committee: 5/1/09
• Voted on by Senate: 5/6/09
• Out of House Committee: 5/23/09
• Voted on by House: 5/27/09
• Governor Action: 6/19/09
• Enrolled: 5/28/09
• Passed: 6/19/09

Caption

Relating to a study regarding the confidentiality of prescription information; providing a civil penalty.

Impact

The bill proposes that the Texas State Board will conduct a comprehensive study regarding the license, transfer, use, and sale of prescription information records. The findings from this study are expected to provide essential insights and recommendations that could reshape legislative measures relating to the confidentiality of healthcare data. By requiring a report due no later than August 1, 2010, the bill places a timeframe for the board to analyze existing practices and suggest necessary legislative changes, thereby potentially influencing future laws governing patient privacy in Texas.

Summary

Senate Bill 646, introduced by Senator Van de Putte, focuses on addressing the confidentiality of prescription information and mandates a study on the commercialization of such data. The bill aims to ensure that sensitive patient and practitioner information, which can be exploited by entities such as pharmacy benefit managers and insurers for advertising and marketing purposes, is adequately protected. The need for this legislation arises from growing concerns over privacy violations in healthcare data, particularly regarding how prescription records are handled by various stakeholders in the healthcare system.

Contention

Notably, SB646 includes provisions for civil penalties against entities that fail to comply with information requests tied to the study. This introduces a financial deterrent against non-compliance, indicating the seriousness of safeguarding patient and practitioner data. The maximum penalty can reach up to $5,000 for each violation, encouraging entities to cooperate fully with the board’s investigation. However, while proponents may see this as a means to enhance patient privacy, critics could argue about the implications for businesses and the burdens of compliance they might face if the recommendations lead to stringent regulations.