Enacts the safe access to care act requiring certain healthcare facilities to adopt and make public a statement of patient rights and healthcare facility obligations with regards to immigration enforcement; includes unlawful or non-judicially authorized immigration enforcement actions at a healthcare facility as a workplace threat or hazard for purposes of the violence prevention program.
S10494, the “Safe Access to Care Act,” would add a new section to the Public Health Law requiring a broad range of licensed healthcare facilities in New York to adopt and publicly post patient-rights statements and written policies governing interactions with civil immigration enforcement. The bill defines civil immigration enforcement broadly and requires facilities to protect patient access to care, confidentiality, informed consent, and private communications, including for patients who arrive in custody of immigration agents. It also requires facilities to designate contact persons, verify warrants or orders, document encounters, train staff, and notify the Department of Health and the Attorney General of immigration-enforcement actions at the facility.
The bill would also amend workplace safety law to treat unlawful or non-judicially authorized immigration enforcement actions at healthcare facilities as a workplace threat or hazard. As a result, healthcare facilities’ workplace violence prevention programs and safety/security plans would have to address immigration-enforcement scenarios, access controls, and staff training. The Department of Health would be directed to issue model guidance, model policies, signage, training materials, and a reporting mechanism, and facilities would have to comply on a set timeline.
The bill’s overall effect on state law would be to create explicit statutory protections limiting voluntary cooperation by healthcare facilities and staff with immigration enforcement absent a valid judicial warrant or order, while preserving compliance with other state and federal law. It would also create enforcement tools, including Attorney General action, private rights of action for aggrieved individuals, administrative enforcement by the Department of Health, and anti-retaliation protections for employees who refuse to assist unlawful access requests or report violations.
Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided context, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to assess. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears strongly protective of immigrant patients and healthcare workers, emphasizing access to care, confidentiality, and trauma-informed treatment. The policy is framed as a patient-safety and workplace-safety measure rather than an immigration bill, but it clearly places limits on immigration enforcement activity in healthcare settings.
The main points of contention likely concern the scope of the restrictions on immigration enforcement, the operational burden on hospitals and other facilities, and the interaction with federal law and law-enforcement cooperation. Potentially affected stakeholders include hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, federally qualified health centers, healthcare workers, immigrant patients, the Department of Health, and the Attorney General. The bill also anticipates labor concerns by preserving collective bargaining rights over training and procedures.
This bill would amend the Public Health Law to require covered healthcare facilities to adopt patient-rights statements and immigration-enforcement access policies, and to incorporate those policies into existing facility rights documents where applicable. It would prohibit voluntary disclosure of patient immigration-related information and voluntary access to nonpublic areas, patients, or records by civil immigration enforcement agents unless supported by a valid judicial warrant or order or otherwise required by law. It would also add new workplace-safety obligations by treating unlawful or non-judicially authorized immigration enforcement actions as a workplace hazard under the healthcare facility violence-prevention framework.
The provided record contains no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no formal legislative sentiment to report from those sources. The bill text itself reflects a clear pro-access, pro-confidentiality, and pro-worker-safety posture, suggesting support for immigrant patients and healthcare staff who may face enforcement activity in clinical settings. The measure is framed as ensuring uninterrupted care and protecting facilities from unauthorized enforcement intrusion.
Likely areas of contention include whether the bill unduly restricts cooperation with federal immigration authorities, whether the warrant-verification and documentation requirements are administratively burdensome, and how the state requirements interact with federal immigration law and facility security practices. Healthcare facilities may be concerned about compliance costs and operational complexity, while immigrant advocates and patient-rights supporters are likely to favor the bill’s confidentiality and access protections. Labor organizations may support the training and safety provisions, and the bill explicitly preserves collective bargaining rights over related procedures.