SB 475, An Act Concerning Judicial Branch Operations

TESTIMONY OF THE CONNECTICUT HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION
SUBMITTED TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Friday, March 20, 2026

The Connecticut Hospital Association (CHA) appreciates this opportunity to submit testimony concerning SB 475, An Act Concerning Judicial Branch Operations.  CHA opposes Section 3 of the bill as written.

Connecticut hospitals make our state stronger by delivering nationally recognized, world-class care, supporting jobs and economic growth, and serving communities across Connecticut.  Every day, hospitals improve access, affordability, and health equity — providing care to all patients regardless of ability to pay.  At the same time, hospitals invest in their workforce and local communities, even as they navigate significant financial and federal challenges.

Section 3 of SB 475 is meant to remove perceived barriers when a patient’s attorney needs to access a patient’s hospital medical record.  These activities, perceived as barriers (i.e., patient consent, fees, and HIPAA paperwork), are all legally permissible, but in some instances can have a direct impact on court operations and judicial proceedings if lawyers are delayed in receiving records.  Occasionally, the delay could negatively impact a patient’s case.

CHA has worked over the last several sessions with various stakeholders to address this concern in a way that protects patient privacy and does not significantly interfere with the pipeline of medical record access for everyone. 

The goal remains to find a solution to fast-track attorney requests in a way that is Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant and produces the least operational disruption.  While prioritizing lawyers’ requests will cause some disruption for all medical record disclosures across the board (because the system is a pipeline and favoring one type of requester will disadvantage and delay other requests), taking action to prioritize these requests can solve the immediate concern raised by lawyers. 

It is essential that this prioritization remains as narrow as possible to avoid greater disruption in the medical records pipeline that could eventually negatively affect patient care.  Prioritization must be limited to patients’ lawyers and be designed to meet all relevant privacy and security laws, including HIPAA.

Unfortunately, the language in Section 3 of SB 475 does not strike that balance and goes well beyond lawyer requests.  We do not believe this overly broad approach was the committee’s intent, as it would interfere widely with hospital operations and eventually would negatively impact patient care.

We look forward to continuing to work with the committee and interested stakeholders on language that removes barriers to attorneys’ record access while still protecting patient rights, minimizes risks to patient care, and maintains integrity of hospital operations.

Thank you for your consideration of our position.  For additional information, contact CHA Government Relations at (203) 294-7301.