An Act Concerning Health Data.
HB 6060 would create a new framework in Connecticut law for the ownership, collection, storage, transfer, and use of personal health data. The bill states that patients and users are the primary owners of their health data and would give them stronger rights to access, control, transfer, and revoke consent for that data. It also requires clearer transparency from entities that collect or store health data, including health care providers, health technology companies, and research institutions.
The bill further sets standards for consent in health technologies, including artificial-intelligence-enabled tools, and calls for standardized digital consent processes so people understand how their data will be used, shared, and retained. It would also establish an ethics review board to oversee predictive algorithms for fairness and bias, and require continuous security audits with disclosure of findings to an oversight body. Overall, the bill is aimed at strengthening patient privacy, data governance, and accountability in health technology.
If enacted, the bill would amend the general statutes to impose new legal duties on parties handling health data, including requirements for transparency, consent management, opt-in/opt-out mechanisms, data portability, and revocation of consent. It would also add oversight structures for algorithmic decision-making and cybersecurity auditing, affecting health care providers, digital health vendors, AI developers, and research entities that collect or use health information. The measure would likely expand consumer rights over personal health data and create compliance obligations for organizations operating in Connecticut's health data ecosystem.
Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed positively as a privacy- and accountability-focused reform, with no recorded committee debate or votes indicating opposition or support. The proposal emphasizes patient control, transparency, and safeguards against misuse of health data, suggesting a consumer-protection orientation. Because there are no transcripts or voting records provided, there is no documented legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s stated purpose.
The most likely points of contention involve how far the bill goes in treating patients and users as the primary owners of health data, and the compliance burden it could place on health care providers, technology companies, and researchers. Potential concerns may also arise around the feasibility of standardized consent systems, the scope and authority of the proposed ethics review board, and the costs and operational impact of continuous security audits and public disclosure of findings. Another possible issue is how the bill would regulate AI-driven health tools and predictive algorithms without slowing innovation or research.