HB1414 revises Colorado law governing access to medical records held by health-care facilities and health-care providers. The bill requires covered entities to provide copies of patient records, including X-rays, to patients, personal representatives, or third parties with proper authorization, subpoena, or court order, and it adds a specific fee structure for attorney requests. For requests over 664 pages, the total amount charged to an attorney representing the patient or the patient’s personal representative may not exceed $400, with that cap adjusted for inflation beginning in 2028 and every two years thereafter.
The bill also requires records to be delivered in electronic format when requested and when the records are already stored and readily producible electronically. It imposes a 30-day deadline for invoicing and production, allows one 30-day extension with written notice, and provides that records not produced on time, or without proper extension notice, must be provided at no cost unless a force majeure event prevents compliance. The bill preserves existing confidentiality protections by stating that nothing in the new provisions requires disclosure of privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected information.
Impact
HB1414 amends Colorado Revised Statutes sections 25-1-801 and 25-1-802, which govern patient records in the custody of health-care facilities and individual health-care providers. It creates a new statutory fee cap for large attorney-requested medical record productions, adds inflation indexing and publication requirements for that cap, and establishes new timing and electronic-delivery requirements for responding to record requests. The bill affects health-care facilities, individual providers, patients, patient representatives, attorneys, and third-party requestors, while preserving existing HIPAA and state-law privacy protections.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have generally favorable support in both chambers, as reflected by passage on third reading in the House and Senate and unanimous committee votes on the recorded committee actions shown. The floor votes were more divided than the committee votes, suggesting some concern or disagreement remained, but the measure still advanced with clear majorities. Overall, the legislative record indicates the bill was viewed positively as a consumer-access and cost-control measure for medical records.
Contention
The main points of contention appear to center on the fee cap, the mandatory electronic-format delivery requirement, and the penalty that records must be provided at no cost if deadlines are missed without a valid extension. Those provisions likely affect health-care providers and facilities that process large volumes of record requests, while benefiting patients and attorneys seeking records for treatment, claims, or litigation. The bill also includes exceptions for protected or privileged information and force majeure events, which may have been intended to address concerns from providers about compliance burdens and privacy obligations.