Easier Sharing of Health Info to Prevent Harm

Summary#

This bill changes when health-care workers in Nova Scotia can share a patient’s personal health information without consent to prevent harm. It replaces a stricter test that required an “imminent and significant” danger with a clearer, broader rule about a “risk of serious harm.”

• Lets a provider share information to prevent or lessen a risk of serious harm to the patient or to another person.
• Removes the need for the danger to be “imminent,” so action can happen earlier.
• Focuses on harm to a specific person (the patient or another person), rather than to “any person or class of persons.”
• Applies to doctors, nurses, hospitals, clinics, and other custodians of health information.

What it means for you#

• Patients

  • Your doctor or another provider may share some of your health information without your permission if they believe it could prevent or reduce a serious risk of harm to you or to someone else.
  • This sharing can happen even if the danger is not immediate.

• Families and caregivers

  • You may be contacted or given limited information in a crisis if a provider believes it will help prevent serious harm to your loved one or to someone else.

• Health-care providers and clinics

  • You have clearer authority to disclose information to prevent or lessen a serious risk of harm, without needing to judge if the danger is “imminent.”
  • You may share with people who can help prevent harm, such as family members, other providers, or, when needed, police.

• Police and first responders

  • You may receive relevant health information more readily in situations where there is a serious risk of harm to a person.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Proponents' View#

• Makes it easier to step in early to prevent suicide, violence, or other serious harm.
• Reduces hesitation and confusion among providers about when they can share information in a crisis.
• Better protects both patients and people around them by allowing timely, targeted sharing.
• Aligns the law’s language with common safety practices in mental health and emergency care.

Opponents' View#

• Lowers privacy protections by using a broader, more flexible standard that could lead to more disclosures.
• May discourage some people, especially those with mental health or addiction issues, from being fully open with their providers.
• The term “risk of serious harm” can be subjective, raising concerns about inconsistent judgments and potential over-sharing.
• By focusing on the patient or “another person,” it may limit warnings aimed at broader groups when a risk affects many people.