38 published accounts of slow or costly access to health records from 33 countries and territories
Slow or costly access, as we file it: the person got their record, but late, or only after paying too much.
Published November 2024 to September 2026, found in sources in 13 languages: 38 of all 442 cases. By region, 6 in Africa, 13 in the Americas, 5 in Asia, 12 in Europe, 1 in the Middle East and 1 in Oceania. Of these, a regulator or court decided 14, the organization involved admitted 12, 11 are allegations not decided and 1 is a person's own account. The sources: 14 decisions by regulators and ombudsmen, 1 court judgments and 23 reports by edited news outlets. The list last changed on October 7, 2026.
Each case is filed under one kind of problem when it is written, by the rule above; the cases here are the ones filed under it. These cases are not a sample: they show what is published and findable, not how common delays and charges are.
Each case's id links its line on Real cases, the one address to cite. Every case, every kind of problem, by country: Real cases.
By month and region
all cases that monthcases filed as delay or costa month not yet overevery panel on the same scale, 0 to 15 cases a month
Africa47 cases, 25 countries and territoriesAmericas89 cases, 29 countries and territoriesAsia76 cases, 25 countries and territoriesEurope187 cases, 47 countries and territoriesMiddle East25 cases, 13 countries and territoriesOceania18 cases, 6 countries and territories
Each bar counts the cases whose source was published that month, October 2024 to October 2026, by region. Pick a kind of problem to see its share of each bar. Counts show what was published and what our searches found, not how often problems happen. October 2026 runs only to October 3, 2026, the newest source date, so its bars are drawn as outlines. Every case as a spreadsheet (CSV).
See the numbers
Cases filed as delay or cost, by month of the source and by region
Month
Africa
Americas
Asia
Europe
Middle East
Oceania
All
October 2024
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
November 2024
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
December 2024
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
January 2025
1
2
0
0
0
0
3
February 2025
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
March 2025
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
April 2025
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
May 2025
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
June 2025
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
July 2025
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
August 2025
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
September 2025
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
October 2025
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
November 2025
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
December 2025
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
January 2026
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
February 2026
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
March 2026
1
0
1
2
0
0
4
April 2026
1
1
0
1
0
0
3
May 2026
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
June 2026
0
1
0
2
0
0
3
July 2026
1
0
1
2
0
0
4
August 2026
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
September 2026
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
October 2026 (so far)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
All
6
13
5
12
1
1
38
Cases filed as delay or cost, by how settled they are and by region
How settled
Africa
Americas
Asia
Europe
Middle East
Oceania
All
A regulator or court decided
0
5
1
8
0
0
14
The organization admitted the problem
2
4
2
3
0
1
12
Alleged, not decided
4
4
2
1
0
0
11
The person's own account
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
All
6
13
5
12
1
1
38
Cases filed as delay or cost, by kind of source and by region
Patients trying to use the new national health record portal report waiting about two weeks for identity validation. Those who get in often see only a few prescriptions, not their full medical history.
Patients told the newspaper that government offices reject medical reports older than six months, so they must request new ones, wait about 14 working days and pay 50 riyals each time, though nothing has changed.
The health service said its electronic patient record was down. While it lasted, patients could not book consultations, make appointments or have prescriptions renewed, and the service said it was working on a fix.
Responding to reports of consultation delays and piles of paper folders, the hospital's chief medical director said electronic records cover only two departments so far and the rest will follow in phases.
Patients seeking approval for treatment abroad say officials asked for 5,000 dollars before signing the final medical conclusion they need, and that people who do not pay can wait years for the document.
Patients reported that the national health information system and the eHealth portal were unavailable for several days, so results could not be checked online and prescriptions were issued on paper. The ministry confirmed temporary technical problems.
A patient asked a former GP surgery to correct entries they believed were wrong and heard nothing. After the regulator stepped in, the surgery apologised, kept the entries as clinical opinion, and offered to add the patient's disagreement.
A patient asked the ombudsman for help after a former state hospital could not locate his medical file. After the ombudsman stepped in, the file was found and he regained access to his key health data.
A reported feature on complaints about medical errors finds that patients and families struggle to get the complete record, which stays with the institution, and that access can be limited or delayed.
A patient treated at a clinic abroad was refused the medical file and follow-up paperwork until a further fee was paid, the outlet reports. The file was released once the bill was settled.
A woman says two appointments were cancelled for lack of doctors, then staff said they could not locate her file. She repeated her tests and waited more than a year for follow-up.
After leaving her private insurer, a patient had to request her record in person and pay 30 euros in cash for a one-page copy. The regulator found the charge unlawful; the clinic accepted responsibility and paid a reduced fine.
Health records clerks in public hospitals say their departments run with about half the staff they should have. Some counters close, so patients must come back the next day to collect their card and learn their follow-up date.
A patient living outside Denmark asked a general practice for an electronic copy of their record. The clinic said it could only hand it over on a new USB stick the patient brought in person. The board criticised the clinic.
A network failure made the Bru-HIMS record system unavailable at a government screening centre. Worker screening, vaccination and occupational health services were affected and people with appointments were told to reschedule. The ministry apologised.
The insurer issued a notice that a critical failure at its digital platform since 1 March had stopped pre-authorisation and eligibility checks at contracted facilities nationwide. It apologised for the disruption to patient care.
A patient asked a health institution to email all their outpatient records. It demanded a per-page fee and said records could only be collected in person. It sent them free months later, after the regulator opened a case.
The state health service said a technical fault outside its control blocked lab results from loading into the electronic health record for days. It mailed paper copies meanwhile, apologised, and offered help to anyone still missing results.
An internet fault left a government health centre unable to reach the national Bru-HIMS record system. Test result reviews, sample collection and medicine pickups stopped there, and patients were sent to other centres. The ministry apologised.
A patient made six requests for his health information and waited more than a year to receive it. The regulator proposed a penalty; the provider settled before a hearing and paid $112,500.
A patient in Madeira received some records but, after repeated requests, a key part of the file was still missing. The health service did not reply to the commission, which ruled it must provide the records or justify refusal.
A patient said she applied for her own hospital records and paid the fee, but nearly three months later still had not received them, stalling an official application. She alleged staff help faster if tipped.
A retired mineworker says a medical certification about him was made when he retired, but nobody told him until four years later, when he saw the certificate.
Insured patients were told there was no system for several days, so appointments, medicine and laboratory results stopped. The hospital director said the system had failed, as many times before, because of an internet provider problem.
After a cyberattack slowed the national public health institute's systems, confirmatory results for patients in at least seven hospitals took about 30 days instead of 12 to 15. The institute blamed a switch to a manual system.
Relatives of an adult patient said in a constitutional claim that a written request for his clinical record went unanswered. His lawyer later acknowledged obtaining copies. The Constitutional Court denied protection without examining the merits.
A patient asked a public hospital for all the personal data it held. More than a month later there was still no answer, though the matter was urgent. The records were provided only after the regulator contacted the hospital group.
The Malaysian Medical Council found that a doctor supplied a requested medical report roughly ten months after the request, failing to provide it within a reasonable time, and reprimanded the doctor along with a separate charge.
Residents told a news outlet that hospitals now post charges at reception, including a fee for a diagnosis certificate, so patients must pay to get a written record of their own diagnosis.
A data centre failure took the public insurer's digital health record and app offline for hours. Users could not view their records or appointments, and the insurer told clinics to contact affected patients and rebook them.
A patient's representative asked an academic health center for her records. Part came quickly; the rest arrived more than two years later, after two complaints to the regulator. The center did not contest a $200,000 penalty.
After a ransomware attack the ministry shut its systems, and staff retrieved patient records manually. Services were delayed, and patients were asked to bring medicine containers and written prescriptions for refills.
A news report says lab results and scans at a public hospital pile up unread. Patients told reporters they waited ten days to two weeks without receiving the report on their own tests.
A person asked a public health insurer for copies of their imaging studies and the reports on them. The insurer missed the legal deadline and only found the files after a complaint. The regulator ordered delivery free of charge.
A patient asked a health system for his medical records by mail, telephone and its patient portal. He received them about nine months later, only after the regulator opened an investigation. The system paid $60,000.
Over a year, a large hospital trust failed to answer 32% of people's requests for their own personal data within one month. It could not say how many requests were in its backlog. The ICO issued a reprimand.
A ransomware attack encrypted the shared databases of three large testing and laboratory centres, affecting thousands of patients for ten days. The group said no patient data was taken, but labs closed and reports were handed out manually.
A patient made a written request for her records, went to collect them, then phoned many times. A county clinic sent them seven months later, after the regulator opened an investigation. The regulator imposed a $100,000 penalty.