SB152, the “Know Your Health-Care Practitioner Act,” creates new disclosure rules for health-care practitioners in Colorado to make it easier for patients to understand who is providing their care and what credentials that person holds. The bill requires certain advertisements for health-care services that name a practitioner to identify the practitioner’s state-issued license, certificate, or registration, and prohibits deceptive or misleading statements about a practitioner’s profession, training, education, board certification, or credentials.
The bill also requires practitioners in certain patient-care settings to wear a conspicuous name tag or similar identification during patient encounters, unless an exception applies. In addition, when a practitioner first establishes a relationship with a patient, the practitioner must verbally identify their license, certificate, or registration, or use a statutorily authorized title or abbreviation, unless the situation is emergent or otherwise impracticable. The bill allows supplemental titles or descriptors only if the practitioner also clearly identifies the specific credential held and the descriptor accurately reflects the practitioner’s scope or specialization.
Impact
SB152 amends Colorado’s Medical Transparency Act of 2010 by adding a new subsection governing point-of-service disclosure requirements for health-care practitioners. It affects advertising, in-person identification, and initial verbal disclosure rules for practitioners in hospitals, urgent care centers, ambulatory surgical centers, and freestanding emergency departments, while excluding non-patient-care settings and situations where compliance is not clinically feasible. The bill also caps administrative fines for violations of this new subsection at $500 and states that violations do not create a private right of action.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support and was advanced overwhelmingly at each stage, with unanimous or near-unanimous committee votes and strong floor votes in both chambers. The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history suggests general agreement with the bill’s transparency and patient-information goals. The few dissenting votes on final passage indicate some limited concern, but the measure was not broadly controversial in the legislative process.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely the balance between patient transparency and practitioner burden, as well as how the bill affects professional titles, marketing, and workplace identification practices. Potential concerns include whether the disclosure requirements could be confusing in team-based care settings, whether they impose operational costs on facilities and practitioners, and whether the exceptions for safety and clinical infeasibility are sufficient. The bill’s supporters appear to emphasize informed consent, patient trust, and protection against misleading advertising, while any opposition likely centers on implementation complexity and the risk of overregulation.
A bill for an act relating to protections for medical practitioners, health care institutions, and health care payors including those related to the exercise of conscience, whistleblower activities, and free speech, and providing penalties.
A bill for an act relating to protections for medical practitioners, health care institutions, and health care payors including those related to the exercise of conscience, whistleblower activities, and free speech, and providing penalties.(See HF 571.)