An Act Concerning Processing Fees For Medical Records For Applications For Disability Retirement.
Summary
HB05388 would amend Connecticut’s patient-records statute to add a new fee exemption for certain medical-record requests tied to disability retirement applications under the State Employees Retirement System. Under current law, providers may charge up to 65 cents per page, plus limited related costs, when furnishing health records, but the bill would prohibit any charge when the requested record is needed to support an application for disability retirement benefits and the request is accompanied by documentation of that application.
The bill also preserves existing rules requiring providers to furnish records within 30 days, limiting charges for x-rays to materials costs, and restricting fees for records needed for Social Security disability claims or veterans’ benefits claims. It does not broadly eliminate medical-record copying fees; rather, it creates a targeted exemption for a specific class of retirement-related disability claims involving state employees.
Impact
The bill would amend General Statutes section 20-7c(d), effective October 1, 2026, by expanding the list of situations in which providers may not charge for copies of health records. Its practical effect is to reduce out-of-pocket costs for state employees seeking disability retirement benefits by ensuring that medical documentation needed for those applications is provided free of charge, while leaving the general fee cap and other record-access rules intact for most other requests.
Sentiment
The available vote history suggests the bill was generally well received in committee, passing the Labor and Public Employees Committee on a 9-4 joint favorable vote. No transcript excerpts were provided, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the committee outcome indicates majority support for easing the cost burden on applicants seeking disability retirement records.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the cost shift from applicants to health care providers, since the bill removes the ability to charge for copying records in this narrow category. Supporters would view the exemption as a fairness measure for employees pursuing disability retirement, while opponents may be concerned about administrative burden, lost copying revenue, or the precedent of creating additional fee exemptions beyond Social Security and veterans’ claims. The bill’s narrow scope suggests the disagreement is less about access to records generally and more about whether this particular retirement-related claim should receive the same no-fee treatment as other benefit applications.