Q: Can a successor patient advocate in Michigan access the same info as a primary advocate?

A: The successor patient advocate in Michigan does not automatically have the same rights to access patient information as the primary patient advocate unless specific conditions are met. Under Michigan law, a successor patient advocate only assumes the powers and responsibilities of the primary advocate if the primary advocate is unable to act due to incapacity, resignation, or removal, as outlined in

MCLS 700.5507. Therefore, the successor advocate cannot access the same level of information as the primary advocate unless they are actively serving in the role of patient advocate.

The written agreements defining the roles of the primary and successor advocates are critical in this situation. If the agreements explicitly grant the successor advocate access to patient information while the primary advocate is still serving, this could provide a legal basis for such access. However, absent such provisions, the successor advocate's access is limited to when they are acting as the patient advocate, as per the statutory framework

MCLS 700.5507, MCLS 700.5509.

Additionally, the primary advocate is required to act in accordance with the patient’s best interests and known desires, as stated in MCLS 700.5507 and MCLS 700.5509. If the primary advocate’s refusal to share information with the successor advocate is inconsistent with the patient’s best interests or expressed wishes, this could potentially be challenged

MCLS 700.5507, MCLS 700.5509.

In conclusion, the successor patient advocate does not have the same access to patient information as the primary advocate unless the primary advocate is unable to act or the written agreements explicitly provide for such access. The matter should be reviewed in light of the written agreements and the patient’s expressed wishes to ensure compliance with Michigan law and the patient’s best interests.

A: Mr Gudeman is correct but I would add this is why it is CRITICALLY IMPORTANT that you consult with your attorney when drafting such powers of attorney to insure your wishes are carried out and that the agents are also fully informed about their roles and what the principal wants them to do.

There ARE options, and indeed it is even possible (and I think preferable) to name agents 'and/or' rather than in succession with 'primary / secondary' to avoid this sort of issue. The agents need to be able to work together to insure the best care for the patient and if they are going to be disagreeing, it defeats the purpose. The principal should consider naming different people (if that is still possible!) if these two can't agree.

A: In Michigan, a successor patient advocate does not have the same legal authority as the primary advocate until the primary is unable or unwilling to act. The written designation typically outlines this hierarchy, and until the successor is officially “activated,” they don’t have the right to access the patient’s private medical information. That includes records protected under HIPAA and other privacy laws.

The primary patient advocate is the one with the current authority to make medical decisions and receive information. If the successor pushes for access without having been officially activated, it could be viewed as overstepping or even a breach of the patient’s privacy. Unless the patient has expressly stated—in writing—that both advocates can access information at the same time, only the primary advocate’s rights apply while they are active.

To resolve this, it’s best to go back to the written agreements and see what the patient authorized. If there’s any ambiguity, you can ask the patient directly (if they’re able to make decisions) to clarify what they want. At the end of the day, the patient’s wishes come first, and the paperwork should reflect that. It's a sensitive issue, but sticking to the legal structure helps protect everyone's rights and keeps the focus on the patient’s well-being.