Concerning the provision of medical records in the custody of certain health-care entities.
Summary
HB26-1414 changes Colorado law governing access to medical records held by health-care facilities and individual health-care providers. The bill keeps the existing requirement that records be provided to patients, personal representatives, or third parties with proper HIPAA-compliant authorization, subpoena, or court order, but adds a new fee cap for large requests made by an attorney representing the patient or the patient’s personal representative. If the requested record exceeds 664 pages, the total charge may not exceed $400, subject to later inflation adjustments beginning in 2028.
The bill also requires records to be delivered in electronic format when the requester asks for it, the original records are stored electronically, and the records are readily producible electronically. It establishes a 30-day deadline for issuing an invoice and providing the records after payment, allows one 30-day extension with written notice, and requires records not timely produced to be provided at no cost unless a force majeure event prevents compliance. The bill also clarifies that nothing in these provisions requires disclosure of privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected information under state or federal law.
Impact
The bill 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 imposes a new statewide fee ceiling for certain attorney-requested medical record productions, adds an inflation-indexed adjustment mechanism tied to the Denver-Aurora-Lakewood CPI, and creates specific delivery and timing requirements for electronic records requests. Health-care entities, providers, attorneys, patients, and personal representatives are the primary affected parties, and the bill preserves existing privacy and privilege protections while tightening administrative obligations for record production.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill moved forward without recorded opposition in the provided materials and was ultimately signed by the Governor. Its structure indicates a consumer- and access-oriented policy approach, aimed at limiting record-production costs and delays while preserving lawful privacy protections. The absence of committee transcripts or recorded votes in the supplied context makes it difficult to identify detailed debate, but the bill’s enactment suggests it had sufficient support to advance through the legislative process.
Contention
The main likely point of contention is the new $400 cap on fees for large medical-record requests made by attorneys on behalf of patients or personal representatives, which may be viewed by health-care entities as limiting cost recovery for labor-intensive productions. A related issue is the exception allowing “reasonable fees” when records must be segregated, withheld, or redacted to comply with law, which could create disputes over when the cap applies. The bill’s 30-day deadline, extension rules, and no-cost remedy for late production may also be contentious for providers that face staffing, technical, or volume-related burdens. At the same time, patient advocates and attorneys are likely to support the measure as a way to improve access and reduce delays.