SB 1437, An Act Concerning Requests For Health Records And The Fees Charged For Access To Such Records
TESTIMONY OF THE CONNECTICUT HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION
SUBMITTED TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Friday, March 7, 2025
The Connecticut Hospital Association (CHA) appreciates this opportunity to submit testimony concerning SB 1437, An Act Concerning Requests For Health Records And The Fees Charged For Access To Such Records. CHA opposes Section 1 of the bill. CHA supports the concept in Section 2 of the bill.
Connecticut hospitals and health systems care for patients, strengthen the state’s economy, and support vulnerable communities across the state. Every day, they work to improve healthcare access, affordability, and health equity. Even as they face ongoing challenges, hospitals provide world-class care to everyone who walks through their doors, regardless of their ability to pay. Hospitals also support an exemplary workforce as the largest collective employer in the state, contribute significantly to the state’s economy, and invest in their communities addressing social drivers of health.
Section 1 focuses on General Statutes Section 31-294f, which addresses medical reports used exclusively in workers’ compensation proceedings. This section of the bill seeks to impose sanctions on providers (or their third-party vendors) if certain reports used in workers’ compensation matters are not timely filed. While we support the goal of ensuring the right information is presented during a workers’ compensation proceeding, we oppose penalizing practitioners in the manner outlined in this section.
If enacted, these sanctions would impose additional administrative infrastructure obligations upon the Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) that we feel are not necessary.
- The punitive model outlined in Section 1 would require an administrative hearing apparatus within the workers’ compensation system and force providers to protect their rights (with lawyers and defenses), which would be an inefficient use of the Commission and its resources. CHA’s understanding is that providers who do not follow the workers’ compensation rules can already be barred from the program (a step the Commission has not taken widely).
- In the alternative, CHA believes that simply sending a notice to a provider indicating that a report is due to be delivered would likely be sufficient to remedy the problem, without the need for a punitive model. CHA supports the Commission having a process in place to notify providers that a report is due, is late, or is required at any time that the Commission believes that information would assist in processing workers’ compensation claims. We believe it is already within the power of the Commission and would not require a law.
The sanctions contemplated in this section would also disincentivize provider participation in the workers’ compensation system.
- CHA believes that the risks and costs of this approach have not been properly assessed and that negative unintended consequences outweigh the perceived benefit. For example, we believe that a number of providers may refuse to continue to participate in the workers’ compensation system, reducing access to scarce provider specialty resources, in order to avoid the risk of being subject to the penalties. This program can ill-afford losing providers, particularly specialists.
Additionally, if there are going to be changes made to General Statutes Section 31-294f, we urge there be clarity on what records and reports are required to be disclosed. As drafted, Section 1 of the bill misapprehends what these reports are — they are not usual and customary medical records. Those medical records are already routinely shared with all the necessary stakeholders in the workers’ compensation process, and there has been no indication that those records are delayed in any manner. The reports contemplated in this section are essentially progress or status reports that are part of a decades-old workers’ compensation process developed in an exclusively paper-based records world, before the modernization of electronic medical records systems and electronic healthcare workflow processes.
CHA stands ready to work with the Commission to find solutions to the perceived problem. We believe there are better, alternative approaches besides legislation that could greatly improve the situation with far less burden on the system.
We urge you to reject Section 1 of the bill.
Section 2 of the bill presents a solution to an issue raised by plaintiffs’ lawyers that stands to facilitate the process by which these lawyers may access a client’s medical records to support their efforts to seek redress for legal claims more readily than current law allows. CHA has been working with representatives of the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association (CTLA) to develop a workable solution that does not cause significant disruptions to the necessary, routine processes for how medical records are accessed by patients and other providers. The language in this section addresses areas of prospective consensus with respect to these ongoing deliberations.
While we support the solution outlined in Section 2 of the bill, we are mindful that, given the complex landscape underpinning the medical records industry, this section may affect providers and vendors in ways that have both intended and unintended impacts on hospitals and other healthcare providers. We look forward to continuing our work with CTLA and to expanding these deliberations to include additional providers and vendors.
Thank you for your consideration of our position. For additional information, contact CHA Government Relations at (203) 294-7301.