Panel reviews S.28: broadening provider privacy, policing misleading health advertising and allowing remote screening for medication abortion

Legislative counsel walked the House Committee on Health Care through S.28, a Senate bill that would add new protections for health care providers' contact information, expand advertising and professional‑conduct rules to cover misleading information about health care services, clarify confidentiality for fetal death reports, and create exceptions allowing adaptive, asynchronous questionnaires for prescribing medication abortion.

Jen Harvey of the Office of Legislative Council summarized the bill's components, telling the committee that section 1 would add an exemption in the Public Records Act (1 VSA §317(c)) for contact information in Office of Professional Regulation records unless an applicant designates an address as public. Section 2 and related provisions would expand unprofessional‑conduct language across the Office of Professional Regulation and the Board of Medical Practice to prohibit advertising about health care services that "is untrue or clearly designed to mislead the public about the nature of the services provided." Section 3 would replace language targeted at limited‑services pregnancy centers with broader consumer‑protection provisions applicable to any advertising about health care services.

Harvey said the bill also clarifies definitions and reporting for vital records: sections 4–6 broaden who may submit fetal‑death reports (from "physician" to "licensed healthcare professional") and change record confidentiality and retention rules; fetal‑death reports would be confidential and destroyed after 2 years rather than retained for 5 years under prior law.

The bill would also add an exception to a longstanding ban in professional conduct rules against establishing a clinical relationship solely by questionnaire. Under the proposed language, an "adaptive questionnaire" that allows a licensed practitioner to obtain follow‑up medical history and ask additional questions would be an acceptable basis to prescribe medication to terminate a pregnancy, in furtherance of 18 BSA chapter 223 on reproductive health autonomy. The exemption is limited to medication abortion and includes safeguards requiring clinicians to meet existing standards of care and obtain patient consent.

Section 11 would allow a prescribing practitioner to request that a pharmacist not list the practitioner's personal name on a dispensed prescription for medications used in gender‑affirming care or reproductive health care; the prescription would instead list the facility where the practitioner works to reduce risks to prescribers who face cross‑border enforcement or harassment. Legislative counsel said the pharmacy provision applies "to the extent not expressly prohibited under federal law." Testimony noted that the provision will not fully conceal a prescriber if other records or prescription‑monitoring systems are accessed.

Stakeholders who testified included Devin Green of the Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, who said his group "wholeheartedly support[s]" Sections 1 and 11 and the unprofessional conduct changes after narrowing vague draft language. Jessa Barnard of the Vermont Medical Society said the bill builds on Vermont's 2023 SHIELD laws (Acts 14 and 15) and "does a great job to close some of the gaps" by expanding protections and transparency. Jessica Barquist of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England and the Planned Parenthood Vermont Action Fund urged the committee to adopt the bill, saying the pharmacy provision would help protect providers who prescribe abortion and gender‑affirming medications.

Committee members asked multiple operational questions about how the Public Records exemption would be applied to historical records and to applicants who list only a home address; legislative counsel recommended OPR and the Board of Medical Practice be asked how they would operationalize redactions and address‑protection options. Members also discussed whether the attorney general has resources to enforce the bill's consumer‑protection provisions; witnesses said they had not confirmed AG staffing levels.

The committee did take one procedural straw poll at the end of the hearing on a separate, small technical amendment (H.2307) related to specialty licensing fees for prescribing psychologists. The chair called a straw poll on whether to find the House Ways and Means Committee amendment favorable; the recorded tally on the poll was 9 in favor and 2 opposed. The poll was treated as advisory.

Legislative counsel said if passed, most provisions would take effect on passage. Committee members asked staff to continue stakeholder work to refine definitions and enforcement details before moving final language forward.