Conference committee considers ban on publishing nursing-home room recordings in SB 2070 update

A conference committee reviewing Senate Bill 2070 discussed adding a provision to the state resident-rights law to prohibit publishing recordings captured by authorized in-room electronic monitoring or virtual monitoring devices without the express written consent of the resident or their legal representative.

The committee meeting — convened to reconcile House and Senate changes to SB 2070 — focused in part on privacy and use limits for devices families and facilities use for communication and monitoring. Chair Royce called the committee to order and members debated how to balance family access, resident privacy and staff protections.

Committee members said the bill already contains requirements for consent and notice in shared rooms and that the administrative code supplements the statute. Representative Freilich said families and facility stakeholders support communication tools such as video-call devices but worry that recordings could be posted on social media or captured inadvertently when a wandering resident or a roommate is present. "Their concern is... the things that could specifically record," Freilich said.

Carla Bachman, the State Long Term Care Ombudsman, told the committee the original drafting did not explicitly consider incidental captures such as wandering residents and that the administrative code adds details beyond the statute. "I will be honest with you, that was not something that was discussed," Bachman said of incidental recording in shared-room situations.

Members reviewed specific bill text and locations, noting that the draft already includes consent and signage requirements (including a posted notice on a room door) and an existing prohibition on intercepting communications. Senator Hogan and others said they have tracked this issue for several years; Hogan described the language as the result of prior vetting with the Ombudsman and provider groups.

Several committee members proposed a narrowly worded addition to the resident-rights section to address publication. Representative Ruby and others suggested inserting a new subsection that would read, in effect, that a person may not publish or disclose a recording from an authorized electronic recording device or virtual monitoring device placed in a resident's room without the express written consent of the resident or resident representative. "We may need a new sub 13 that says a person may not publish or disclose... without the express written consent," Chair Royce said during the discussion.

Long Term Care Association representative Nikki Wagner told members providers worry about staff being recorded and then publicly shared; she cited an incident in which a staff member's image was published to social media. "There was an incident where that happened to where a staff person was then published on social media," Wagner said, urging the committee to consider staff protections in drafting.

Representative Rios asked whether there should be exceptions for recordings that capture crimes such as theft or assault. Committee members responded that disclosure to police or to the facility would be allowed under appropriate circumstances, but that creating a clear statutory carve-out — and the precise placement of staff-related protections — may require legal drafting and placement in a different section of code.

The committee agreed to ask legislative counsel to draft amendment language and to run it by legislative counsel (ledge council) for placement and wording. Chair Royce said the group would reconvene only after the counsel produced proposed language so the meeting would not be held "just for the sake of meeting." No formal votes were taken during the conference committee session.

The discussion also touched on earlier bill cleanup items unrelated to recording language; members noted page and subsection references where changes had been made during the amendment process (for example, language about refunds with overpayments on page 7 and roommate consent language on page 10, sub 5). Committee members emphasized the need to preserve protections already vetted by stakeholders while clarifying publication and staff-privacy questions.

Next steps: committee members asked Mr. Alm, the committee's legal adviser, to draft proposed amendment language addressing publication and to coordinate placement with legislative counsel; the committee will schedule a follow-up meeting once that draft is available.