The civic record
Read. Follow. Verify.Massachusetts Bill H.1606 Removes Warrant Requirement for Law Enforcement Access to Prescription Monitoring Data
Last action · March 26, 2026: Accompanied a study order, see H5281 (under House Rule 27)Sponsor: Mike Chaisson
Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.
What This Bill Would Do
Massachusetts Bill H.1606 removes the requirement for a under Chapter 276 when law enforcement accesses . The legislation updates rules for federal agencies, the attorney general's office, and district attorneys' offices requesting drug database information.
Changes the legal threshold required for specific state and federal investigators to view individual prescription drug monitoring records, replacing warrant requirements with localized investigation standards.
- Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) track controlled substance prescriptions to prevent abuse and illegal distribution, while raising ongoing policy questions regarding privacy and law enforcement access. context
Who It Would Affect
Groups the bill's text would affect if enacted, as described in the record. Being affected is not a position for or against it.
Law enforcement personnel
Federal and state investigators gain altered legal standards for accessing prescription monitoring database records.
Prescription drug monitoring database subjects
Individuals have their prescription records subject to database review under modified evidentiary standards without a probable cause warrant.
Key Facts
You don't have to trust us. Each fact below is taken straight from the official document - click any one to see the exact passage, highlighted in the original.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does law enforcement still need a probable cause warrant to access prescription monitoring data under H.1606?
Which government offices are granted access to prescription monitoring data under the updated provisions?
What else do you want to know?
News Coverage
Follow the record
Votes, people, money & the original sourceWhere This Stands
Currently in committee. The next step in the legislative lifecycle is Floor Vote.
Procedural history
5 actions- Mar 26, 2026HouseAccompanied a study order, see H5281 (under House Rule 27)
- Oct 20, 2025JointHearing scheduled for 07/15/2025 from 01:00 PM-08:00 PM in A-2
- Jul 15, 2025JointHearing rescheduled to 07/15/2025 from 01:00 PM-08:00 PM in A-2 and Virtual<br> <span style="color: blue; font-style: italic;">Hearing updated to New End Time</span>
- Feb 27, 2025SenateSenate concurred
- Feb 27, 2025HouseCommitteeReferred to the committee on The Judiciary
Version history
Only one version on file - nothing to compare yet. As later stages (committee substitute, engrossed, enrolled) are captured, the redline appears here.
View official text →Lobbying Activity
No state lobbying filings in our records match this bill. Federal lobbying reports (LDA) cover Congress, so they are not listed on state bills.
Full breakdown
Who this bill affects and the strongest case for and against it, written only from the bill’s own text.
Sponsors
Discoveries
Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.
Study Order Link
The bill accompanied a study order, reference H5281, under House Rule 27.
Connected Entities
Sources
malegislature.gov
Analysis Score
0–100- Significance60How much this matters to a regular citizen
- Controversy65Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
- Entertainment5Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
- Buzz25Current news / social attention level
Publisher tools