Only to a point. I don't work in the area of records and portals, so this is mostly personal observation. You have to check a box and sign off on which, if any of your record can be released without a seperate waiver of consent. Mostly, this is to give the patient the ability to choose not to share drug/alcohol treatment, psych care, or HIV status. Depending on your state (I can only speak to the US system), you can choose to not release a large majority of your record and test results, with some exception within a particular hospital system, of course... the corporatization of hospitals is changing a lot of this with the ability to access through portals, and this is when I noticed this, to be honest. I'll refrain from spergy theorizing, but it has surprisingly remained a struggle to share information between systems.
I personally would find it suspicious if I were a clinician whose patient cock-blocked me from seeing their full record, especially if there were supposedly so complex and speshul. I'd at least expect anyone desperate for help would grant as much access as possible, in the event any physician actually had the time to review more than what is deemed necessary. Am I perhaps not considering something? I very well may be, and would happily stand corrected.
Chelsea very well may have been denying this access all along. That can be an obstacle to things like home care being approved... if any of her complaints of access to necessary services are true (X), I'd suspect she brought that upon herself by being shady and not releasing pertinent records.