Health Record Rights Index

Health Record Rights Index

Who holds the record? An open index that scores 198 countries and territories, from 0 to 100, on one question: can a person see, control and share their own health record?

By SuperTruth Inc. Index version 1.0, data as of 2 October 2026. Data release 1.1 adds the US state layer: what the law of each of the 50 states and DC adds to federal law, read on 3 and 4 October 2026. Data and paper CC BY 4.0, code MIT.

• Live index: https://healthrecordrights.com
• Paper: paper/paper.pdf (working paper, version 1.2; source in paper/paper.md)
• Data: data/ (one file per country), data/us-states/ (one file for each of the 50 states and DC) and exports/ (CSV and JSON)
• API: https://healthrecordrights.com/api/v1/ serves the same data as JSON, with no key

Use the data

The Health Record Rights Index is also open as read-only JSON at https://healthrecordrights.com/api/v1/, with no key and no sign-up. The same data is open to AI assistants through an MCP server at https://healthrecordrights.com/mcp. MCP is a shared standard that lets an assistant read outside data. Each address may make 60 requests a minute, with bursts up to 120, shared between the API and the MCP server. For the whole index at once, use the downloads instead. The data is licensed under CC BY 4.0; credit "SuperTruth, Inc., Health Record Rights Index". Quoted law and source titles stay with their owners, and the code in this repository is MIT. Every route, field and example is on https://healthrecordrights.com/developers/.

[Health Record Rights Index: the globe and the headline finding]

The finding

In 2026, none of the 198 countries and territories we rated puts a person fully in charge of their own health record.

• No country holds the top band. No country reaches Leading (85 and up). By band, 9 rate Strong, 66 Mixed, 111 Weak and 12 Poor. The median is 39.
• The leaders are a group, not a winner. Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary and Sweden have the highest scores. Allowing for scoring error, any of them could rank first, so we name them together.
• Someone else holds the keys everywhere. By default the record sits with the state or with providers: 51 systems are Shared (the person has a working choice inside a shared system), 81 Institutional and 66 State. None is Individual.
• Ranks are ranges. Every country carries the range of ranks it holds in 90% of simulations. Read those, not single positions.

Coverage: all 193 UN member states, plus Greenland, Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Vatican City. Including a place takes no position on its status; we cover every place that runs its own health system.

Top 10

Other large systems: Germany 63 (11=), the Netherlands 60 (23=), the United Kingdom 59 (27=), Japan 56 (38=), Canada and Brazil 52 (47=), the United States 48 (55=, likely 45 to 80), India 45 (71=), China 43 (80=). The full ranking is in exports/who-holds-the-record-scores.csv and Table 2 of the paper.

[Every country in rank order, with its score interval and rank range]

Every country in rank order. The lower panel draws each country's rank range; the upper panel adds the score intervals behind them. No country reaches Leading.

What we measure

Eight weighted categories, each scored 0 to 100 against a written rubric (RUBRIC.md):

The overall score is the weighted sum. The weights are the authors' judgment; the paper tests how much the ranking depends on them. Each country is also placed in one of four classes for who holds the keys by default:

[Who holds the keys: the four classes]

[Scores in each of the eight categories]

Which rights lag. Patient control and clinical AI governance sit lowest; research consent heaps just below the middle of the scale, which is why it barely separates countries.

How it was built

[How the index was built, in six stages]

1. Research. One research agent per country, in the country's own languages, using public sources only: laws, government and regulator pages, court decisions and published news. The rubric requires every cited source to be opened. The agents are built on Anthropic's Claude (Claude Opus 5.5 through Claude Code, 30 September to 2 October 2026). The paper discloses this in full.
2. Cross-check. A second agent session of the same model family checks each country file against the rubric anchors and against peer countries with the same legal situation.
3. Review and audit. Agents audit consistency across countries; the authors rule on every finding and every score change, and every change is logged in docs/SCORE_CHANGES.md.
4. Scoring. Weighted sum, then five bands.
5. Testing. Ranking stability (10,000 simulations), two blind re-scorings, a full second reading of 43 countries, comparison with outside measures, and a link check of every cited source.
6. Publication. Scores, every source, a one-page brief per country, and the paper.

Everything comes from public information: 5,147 cited sources. Of 7,156 cited links, 7,011 opened on recheck on 2 October 2026; 88 were blocked by bot protection and 57 did not answer. No link was dead.

The US state layer

The index scores the United States as one country, on federal law. The state layer records what each state's own law adds to that federal floor, for the 50 states and DC: copy rights, consent for health information exchange, health data held outside HIPAA, breach notice, a private right to sue, rules for AI in care, and four kinds of sensitive record (genetic, HIV, mental health and reproductive). It gives no state score and no state rank, and it changes no country score.

Each state file in data/us-states/ cites the provisions its answers rest on: 929 in all, each with its citation, its official link and the words of the law quoted from it. 912 of the quotes were found word for word in a stored copy of the page (quoteVerified: "raw", with the copy's SHA-256 in rawSha256). The other 17 come from pages built by script that could not be stored as text (quoteVerified: "session"); a second agent session re-read each of them. The stored copies are not in this repository, because statute pages hosted by vendors carry their own terms.

A blind re-reading of 150 sampled cells, by agent sessions that could read only stored copies of the cited pages, agreed with the published cells at an intraclass correlation of 0.965 on the 114 cells with ordered levels where the rater settled a level (bootstrap interval clustered by state, 0.92 to 1.00). Section 11 of the paper sets out the method and its limits. The plan, the rubric, the log of changes, the decision rules, the rulings and the agreement results are in analysis/us/states/.

This is not legal advice. Each cell records what a primary legal text said on the date it was read.

How far to trust it

We published the checks against ourselves, including the ones that do not flatter us.

• Two blind re-scorings. Separate agent sessions re-scored random samples of cells from the cited sources alone, without seeing our scores or our site. On the first 65 countries, agreement was 0.82 (intraclass correlation). On a pre-registered sample of 136 cells from the 133 countries added on 2 October, agreement was 0.84. Access to the record agreed least (0.68), mostly where the rater could not open a cited law text, so a single access score for an added country is not reproducible to the point.
• No human rater has scored the index yet. That is the next step.
• The lead group is on a rule set before the results. A country is in it if it ranks first, alone or tied, in at least 5% of simulations. Sweden is on the edge: 5.09% under the published run, 13 of 16 random seeds, and 2.8% if ties are not counted.

[Share of draws ranked first, by random seed]

• Confidence labels follow a printed rule. High means at least 7 of 8 categories rest on an official source with no fact marked unchecked; low means 4 or more do not. 27 countries are high, 105 medium and 66 low. The label is about the evidence, not the country's rights, and it never changes a score.
• Income matters but does not decide. Richer countries score higher, and income explains about half of the spread, but not all of it.

[Overall score against GDP per head]

The traveling patient

Does your record follow you across a border? The live page at https://healthrecordrights.com/traveler/ lets you pick where you live and a trip, and shows which of the five parts of your record (health summary, medicines, lab results, scans and X-rays, hospital notes) reach a doctor in each country by themselves, and which you would have to carry as a copy.

• Of 702 one-way routes between EU countries, a health summary travels by itself on 143.
• No source says the EU's cross-border service also works for people who move, not just visit.
• 138 of 198 countries give a person a right to a copy of their record.
• EU law adds a right to ask for each part to be sent to another member state: the health summary and medicines from 26 March 2029, the rest from 26 March 2031. A right in law does not move a record today.

[The three worked trips, stop by stop]

[What EU law adds for each part of the record, and when]

What is in this repository

Reproduce it

npm installnode build.js                  # builds the site into out/node scripts/paper_gen.js      # recomputes every number in the paper; refuses stale inputszsh paper/build.sh             # builds paper/paper.pdf (needs pandoc and Chrome)

The paper generator checks a hash of the data against every analysis output and stops if any figure was computed on older data.

One limit: the published accounts (the stories layer) are not in this repository, so that removal requests can be honoured. build.js runs without them and leaves the stories out; paper_gen.js needs them for Section 5's counts and will not run from this repository alone. Every score, rank and analysis rebuilds from what is here. Two more limits for data release 1.1: the code here is the version 1.0 code, so it rebuilds the country data but not the state pages or the version 1.2 paper; and the state layer's harness scripts are not in this repository, so the hashes in analysis/us/states/plan_stamp.txt cannot be checked from here.

How to cite

Snyder, J. A., Hill, R. P., IV, Raney, D., & Sims, L. (2026). The Health Record Rights Index: Who Holds the Record in 198 Countries? (version 1.2). SuperTruth Inc. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23137550

Paper, version 1.2: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23137550 (all versions: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23120174) Data, version 1.1: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23137895 (all versions: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23120172)

Citation metadata is in CITATION.cff. The four authors share equal credit.

Licences

• Data, scores and paper: CC BY 4.0. Credit SuperTruth and link the index. LICENSE-DATA.md says what that covers: quoted law, titles of others' pages and the linked pages keep their owners' terms.
• Code: MIT (see LICENSE).
• The SuperTruth name and logos in brand/ are trademarks of SuperTruth Inc. and are not covered by either licence.

Disclosure and corrections

SuperTruth sells health data verification products, and three of the authors are its officers. The fourth, Leann Sims, is Chief Executive Officer of MedSync, a US health information exchange that works with SuperTruth; the state layer asks about consent for health information exchange and does not name or score MedSync or any other exchange. imaware, an affiliate of SuperTruth, provides testing services under agreements with some US state governments; the index scores the United States as one country, and the state layer gives no state a score or a rank. We built this index and chose its stories ourselves. No government, health system, company or person paid to be included or had any say in the scores.

Press and interviews: Rheanna Crescenzo, [email protected]

This is a research tool, not legal advice. If we got a country wrong, open an issue with the page that shows it and we will fix it in the open.

The published accounts of record problems shown on the site are not deposited here, so that a removal request can be honoured; each links to its public source on the site.