Texas Governor Greg Abbott recently signed into law S.B. 1188, a bill that regulates the security and storage of electronic health record data and the deployment of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in the health care context. The law creates a data localization requirement, obligating covered entities to physically maintain electronic health records in the United States. In addition, the law permits health care practitioners to use AI for diagnostic purposes in connection with electronic health records only in accordance with specified requirements. The law also introduces a definition of “biological sex” and sets forth rules governing when an individual’s biological sex as recorded in an electronic health record may be amended. Further, the law addresses parents’ access to minors’ electronic health records, the facilitation of communication between covered entities, and restrictions on covered entities’ access to certain types of electronic health record information.
Applicability
The law applies to “covered entities” and “health care practitioners.” “Covered entity” has the definition found in Tex. Code Sect. 181.001(b)(2) – an entity that assembles, collects, analyzes, uses, evaluates, stores or transmits “protected health information” (as defined under HIPAA) – and includes health care practitioners. “Health care practitioner” is defined as an individual who is licensed, certified or otherwise authorized to provide health care services in Texas, with certain enumerated exceptions (e.g., nursing and continuing care facilities).
Data Localization and Data Security
The law requires covered entities to physically maintain in the U.S. all electronic health records of Texas patients. This data localization requirement applies to (1) electronic health records that are stored by a third-party or subcontracted computing facility or entity that provides cloud computing services; and (2) electronic health records that are stored using a technology through which patient information may be electronically retrieved, accessed or transmitted.
The law also requires covered entities to ensure that Texas patients’ electronic health record information is accessible only to personnel who require the information to perform relevant employment duties related to treatment, payment or health care operations. In addition, the law requires covered entities to implement reasonable and appropriate administrative, physical and technical safeguards to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of electronic health record information.
Use of AI
The law allows health care practitioners to use AI for diagnostic purposes (including for recommendations, diagnosis and treatment decisions) based on a patient’s medical record, provided that the practitioner meets the following criteria:
- the practitioner discloses to patients their use of AI for diagnostic purposes;
- the practitioner uses AI within the scope of their license, certification or authorization;
- the use of AI is not otherwise restricted or prohibited by applicable state or federal law; and
- the practitioner reviews all records created with AI in a manner consistent with medical records standards developed by the Texas Medical Board.
Biological Sex Information in Electronic Health Records
The law defines “biological sex” as “the biological trait that determines whether a sexually reproducing organism produces male or female gametes,” and defines “male” and “female” based on their reproductive systems. The law requires electronic health records to include fields to record an individual’s biological sex at birth and information on any sexual development disorder of the individual, whether identified at birth or later in the individual’s life. Under the law, a covered entity may amend an individual’s recorded biological sex information only if the amendment is to (1) correct a clerical error or (2) account for a sexual development disorder diagnosis received by the individual. The law also requires that any algorithm or decision assistance tool used in connection with medical treatment decisions made about an individual include the individual’s biological sex.
Miscellaneous Provisions
The law further requires covered entities to facilitate the collection and recording of communications between multiple covered entities regarding a patient’s metabolic health and diet in the treatment of a chronic disease or illness, within the patient’s electronic health record. Additionally, the law prohibits covered entities from collecting, storing or sharing any information regarding an individual’s credit score or voter registration status that is contained in the individual’s electronic health record. The law also requires covered entities to allow parents or legal guardians of minors (under 17) to have immediate, unrestricted access to their minor child’s electronic health records.
Enforcement
The law empowers the Texas Health and Human Services Commission and other appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., the Texas Medical Board, the Texas Department of Insurance) to investigate alleged violations of the law. The appropriate regulatory agency may take disciplinary action against a covered entity that violates the law three or more times in the same manner as if the covered entity violated the applicable licensing or regulatory law (e.g., suspension or revocation of a covered entity’s license, registration or certification).
Additionally, the Texas attorney general may seek injunctive relief and impose civil penalties against covered entities found to be in violation of the law in the range of $5,000 to $250,000 per violation, depending on the nature and degree of the violation.
Effective Date
Most of the law’s requirements and restrictions take effect on September 1, 2025. The data localization provisions requiring electronic health records to be physically maintained in the U.S will take effect retroactively beginning January 1, 2026, and will apply to all electronic health records stored on or after that date, regardless of the date on which the record was prepared.
Search
Recent Posts
Categories
- Behavioral Advertising
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership
- Children’s Privacy
- Cyber Insurance
- Cybersecurity
- Enforcement
- European Union
- Events
- FCRA
- Financial Privacy
- General
- Health Privacy
- Identity Theft
- Information Security
- International
- Marketing
- Multimedia Resources
- Online Privacy
- Security Breach
- U.S. Federal Law
- U.S. State Law
- Workplace Privacy
Tags
- Aaron Simpson
- Accountability
- Adequacy
- Advertisement
- Advertising
- Age Appropriate Design Code
- Age Verification
- American Privacy Rights Act
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence
- Audit
- Australia
- Austria
- Automated Decisionmaking
- Baltimore
- Bankruptcy
- Behavioral Advertising
- Belgium
- Biden Administration
- Big Data
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Biometric Data
- Blockchain
- Bojana Bellamy
- Brazil
- Brexit
- British Columbia
- Brittany Bacon
- Brussels
- Business Associate Agreement
- BYOD
- California
- CAN-SPAM
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- CCPA
- CCTV
- Chile
- China
- Chinese Taipei
- Christopher Graham
- CIPA
- Class Action
- Clinical Trial
- Cloud
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Compliance
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consent Order
- Consumer Protection
- Consumer Rights
- Cookies
- COPPA
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Council of Europe
- Council of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- CPPA
- CPRA
- Credit Monitoring
- Credit Report
- Criminal Law
- Critical Infrastructure
- Croatia
- Cross-Border Data Flow
- Cross-Border Data Transfer
- Cyber Attack
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
- Data Brokers
- Data Controller
- Data Localization
- Data Privacy Framework
- Data Processor
- Data Protection Act
- Data Protection Authority
- Data Protection Impact Assessment
- Data Transfer
- David Dumont
- David Vladeck
- Deceptive Trade Practices
- Delaware
- Denmark
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Justice
- Department of the Treasury
- Department of Treasury
- Design
- Digital Markets Act
- District of Columbia
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- Dobbs
- Dodd-Frank Act
- DORA
- DPIA
- E-Privacy
- E-Privacy Directive
- Ecuador
- Ed Tech
- Edith Ramirez
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Electronic Protected Health Information
- Elizabeth Denham
- Employee Monitoring
- Encryption
- ENISA
- EU Data Protection Directive
- EU Member States
- European Commission
- European Data Protection Board
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- European Parliament
- European Union
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Data Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- FERC
- Financial Data
- FinTech
- Florida
- Food and Drug Administration
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- France
- Franchise
- Fred Cate
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freedom of Speech
- Fundamental Rights
- GDPR
- Geofencing
- Geolocation
- Geolocation Data
- Georgia
- Germany
- Global Privacy Assembly
- Global Privacy Enforcement Network
- Gramm Leach Bliley Act
- Hacker
- Hawaii
- Health Data
- HIPAA
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- House of Representatives
- Hungary
- Illinois
- India
- Indiana
- Indonesia
- Information Commissioners Office
- Information Sharing
- Insurance Provider
- Internal Revenue Service
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
- International Commissioners Office
- Internet
- Internet of Things
- Iowa
- IP Address
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jacob Kohnstamm
- Japan
- Jason Beach
- Jay Rockefeller
- Jenna Rode
- Jennifer Stoddart
- Jersey
- Jessica Rich
- John Delionado
- John Edwards
- Kentucky
- Korea
- Latin America
- Laura Leonard
- Law Enforcement
- Lawrence Strickling
- Legislation
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Louisiana
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Meta
- Mexico
- Michigan
- Microsoft
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Mobile
- Mobile App
- Mobile Device
- Montana
- Morocco
- MySpace
- Natascha Gerlach
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Science and Technology Council
- National Security
- National Security Agency
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Nebraska
- NEDPA
- Netherlands
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- North Korea
- Norway
- Obama Administration
- OCPA
- OECD
- Office for Civil Rights
- Office of Civil Rights
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Online Behavioral Advertising
- Online Privacy
- Opt-In Consent
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Payment Card
- PCI DSS
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Information
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Peru
- Philippines
- Poland
- PRISM
- Privacy By Design
- Privacy Notice
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Rights
- Privacy Rule
- Privacy Shield
- Profiling
- Protected Health Information
- Ransomware
- Record Retention
- Red Flags Rule
- Rhode Island
- Richard Thomas
- Right to Be Forgotten
- Right to Privacy
- Risk-Based Approach
- Rosemary Jay
- Russia
- Safe Harbor
- Sanctions
- Schrems
- Scott Kimpel
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Security Rule
- Senate
- Sensitive Data
- Serbia
- Service Provider
- Singapore
- Smart Grid
- Smart Metering
- Social Media
- Social Security Number
- South Africa
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- South Korea
- Spain
- Spyware
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- State Attorneys General
- States Attorney General
- Steven Haas
- Stick With Security Series
- Stored Communications Act
- Student Data
- Supreme Court
- Surveillance
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Targeted Advertising
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Tennessee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Texas
- Text Message
- Thailand
- Transparency
- Transportation Security Administration
- Trump Administration
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Unmanned Aircraft Systems
- Uruguay
- Utah
- Vermont
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Video Surveillance
- Virginia
- Viviane Reding
- Washington
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code