MN Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Minnesota Health Records Act Case

June 8, 2023

On June 5, the Minnesota Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case pitting the Minnesota Health Records Act (MHRA) against the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).  

Minnesota is one of only a handful of states that have a state health records law that offers more protections to patients than HIPAA. This has caused headaches for healthcare providers and facilities when they try to comply with both laws.  

Parents of a patient at Children’s Hospital Minnesota have sued the hospital for releasing their child’s health records to the Children’s Foundation without their consent. The parents have argued that the MHRA only allows for the release of health records on two occasions 1) with the proper written consent of the patient or their representative, and 2) with specific authorization in law. The parents claim that because the MHRA generally provides more protections of health records, the specific authorization in law must come from a state law and that a federal law, such as HIPAA, cannot provide authorization. Both the district court and the appellate court that heard the case sided with Children’s Hospital finding that the specific authorization could come from HIPAA.  

HIPAA allows for the use or disclosure of protected health information for “treatment, payment, or healthcare operations.” This exception is broad and includes fundraising activities, which is the exception that Children’s Hospital and other Minnesota facilities rely upon. 

The decision made by the Minnesota Supreme Court will either result in additional burdens for facilities and healthcare providers as they work to comply with the very narrow MHRA, or it could result in the ability for facilities and healthcare providers to conduct their business activities without additional burdens, but while continuing to protect patients protected health information.