Committee advances health-care whistleblower bill after debate on scope and confidentiality, 6-4

The House Labor, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee on a 6-4 vote recommended passage of House Bill 337, which would create a state health-care whistleblower protection act shielding employees, patients and certain third parties from retaliatory actions when they report wrongdoing in good faith.

Sponsor Representative Andrea Romero Herndon (sponsor listed in transcript as Representative Herndon) said the measure fills a gap not covered by federal protections and the state’s existing public-employee rules. "This protects not only those who are employed in these kinds of settings, but it also protects patients, their guardians, their families," said the bill’s expert witness, Mary Feldblum of the Health Security for New Mexicans Campaign.

Supporters told the committee they had seen situations where staff feared retaliation for reporting safety and quality problems. Feldblum and other witnesses cited consolidations in health care and said the bill addresses ongoing concerns about fear of reprisal. "There is a serious problem ... people are afraid, health professionals are afraid to talk about what's going on in these institutions," Feldblum said, noting a coalition of organizations backing the bill.

Hospital representatives and some committee members urged narrowing the bill’s language. Al Park, a registered lobbyist for the hospital association, said the definitions of "unlawful or improper acts" and of "health care provider" are too broad and that including patients and consumers as whistleblowers raises technical and policy concerns. "Patients are already protected ... they can make complaints through the medical board, the nursing board, or file a lawsuit under the medical malpractice statute," Park said. He also criticized a provision that he said could require a provider to continue a patient relationship even when the relationship has become untenable.

Supporters said the bill was intended to address behavior that can chill reporting and thereby harm patient care. Representative Herndon and witnesses pointed to recent incidents they said illustrated the problem: a widely reported case at Memorial in Las Cruces that involved 13 patients and an ensuing attorney general inquiry was cited in committee testimony as an example where staff feared speaking up.

Several lawmakers from rural districts raised questions about how the bill would affect patient–provider relationships where options are limited. Representative Reed asked whether patients who report concerns could be left without local care; sponsor and witnesses said the statute’s purpose is to prevent retaliation and that rules implementing the law could address confidentiality and investigative procedures. The sponsor said the bill excludes smaller facilities and certain entities (for example, nursing homes were noted as excluded in testimony) and is targeted at larger hospital entities where staff have less protection.

The committee voted on a do-pass motion moved by Representative Ortez and seconded by Representative Anaya. The roll call included recorded votes: Anaya (yes), Garcia (yes), Hall (no), Mejia (no), Ortiz (yes), Reed (no), Terrazas (no), Torres Velasquez (yes), Chavez (yes), Roybal Caballero (yes). The chair announced the motion carried 6-4.

Supporters said the bill provides confidentiality and remedies to protect reporters; opponents asked for tightened definitions, narrower confidentiality exceptions, and clearer oversight on which authority would receive complaints (examples discussed included the attorney general, medical boards and hospital leadership). The committee gave HB337 a do-pass recommendation; sponsors and witnesses said technical refinements could be addressed in further drafting or rule making.