Connecticut 2025 Regular Session

Connecticut House Bill HB07227

Introduced
3/14/25  
Refer
3/14/25  
Report Pass
3/27/25  
Refer
4/3/25  
Report Pass
4/9/25  
Refer
4/22/25  

Caption

An Act Concerning Eligibility For State Contracting And Fees Charged For Health Records.

Impact

The enactment of HB 07227 will directly affect state laws relating to the processing and charging of fees for health records, enhancing regulations over how health information is shared. By imposing these restrictions on fees, the bill seeks to increase transparency and reduce the financial burden on patients. Additionally, it will ensure that only those providers that comply with these fee structures are eligible to enter into state contracts, thereby incentivizing adherence to the new regulations.

Summary

House Bill 07227 aims to amend how fees for health records are charged when state contracts are entered into. The bill establishes a cap on the fees that providers and other parties can charge for health records when a state contract is involved, aiming to promote fairness and accessibility. Specifically, no provider will be allowed to charge more than either the federal allowed fees or $250, plus postage, for copies of health records. This measure is particularly significant as it intends to provide financial relief for patients seeking their health records for legal and personal purposes.

Sentiment

The general sentiment towards HB 07227 has been predominantly positive among patient advocacy groups and legislators focusing on healthcare costs. Advocates argue that it is a necessary step towards making health records more accessible to patients and their representatives. However, some healthcare providers have expressed concerns regarding the financial implications of these fee caps, suggesting they could affect their operational viability when dealing with record requests. The discussion around this bill highlighted the balance between patient rights and the operational realities of healthcare providers.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the potential for unintended consequences that could arise from imposing fee caps on health record charges. Some legislators and healthcare organizations raised concerns about the possibility that these new restrictions could hinder the quality of record-keeping or lead to increased costs in other areas, potentially negating the benefits intended by the bill. The bill's proponents maintain that the benefits of increased access and reduced costs for patients outweigh these concerns, framing the bill as an essential reform for healthcare transparency.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB954

Dental services: third-party network access.

DC B25-0265

Contract No. GAGA-2022-C-0259 with SodexoMagic, LLC Approval and Payment Authorization Emergency Act of 2023

TX SB543

Relating to oversight of and requirements applicable to state contracts and other state financial and accounting issues; authorizing fees.

TX HB1426

Relating to certain requirements applicable to contracts entered into by, and the contract management process of, state agencies.

MS HB934

Healthcare Contracting Simplification Act; create.

NJ S3443

Requires State Contract Managers to monitor work conducted by subcontractors on State contracts.

NJ A4487

Requires State Contract Managers to monitor work conducted by subcontractors on State contracts.

CA SB681

Public employees’ retirement: contracting agencies: termination.