Committee advances bill requiring hospitals to record patients' citizenship status on intake forms

The Arizona Senate Military Affairs and Border Security Committee on Wednesday voted 4‑3 to recommend Senate Bill 12‑68, a measure that would require hospitals accepting Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) payments to include optional questions on patient registration forms asking whether patients are U.S. citizens, lawfully present in the United States or unlawfully present.

Under the bill language read by committee staff, hospitals would include a statement that answering is optional and that responses would not affect care or be reported to immigration authorities. Hospitals would submit quarterly aggregated reports to the Arizona Department of Health Services with counts of admissions or visits by reported citizenship status and patients who declined to answer. DHS would compile an annual report for the governor, the Legislature and the secretary of state showing reported admission counts, uncompensated care costs for aliens and the impact on hospital service provision; DHS may adopt rules for reporting but would be prohibited from requiring patients’ names or other personal identifying information.

Sponsor Senator Wendy Rogers framed the bill as a tool to calculate uncompensated care costs and to seek federal reimbursement, referencing examples from Arizona hospitals and saying some facilities are “overrun” in border areas. Supporters argued the measure tracks fiscal impacts of care for noncitizens while stating care will not be denied; opponents warned the intake question would create a chilling effect, deterring immigrants — including those with communicable diseases — from seeking care, and could undermine public health.

Marilyn Rodriguez of Creosote Partners, representing Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona, testified in opposition and said collecting immigration‑status data would deter care and jeopardize public health. The ACLU’s Noah Schramm urged a no vote, raising concerns about how aggregated data could be used and noting possible consequences for public‑health and civil‑liberties protections.

Committee debate included questions about whether hospitals support the change, whether the question would discourage care, and what enforcement or downstream uses of data might follow. Several members said the bill prohibits disclosure of personally identifying information in reports and stressed treatment obligations under federal EMTALA law.

The committee recorded 4 ayes and 3 nos and issued a do‑pass recommendation. Opponents said the bill would chill care for vulnerable populations; supporters said it increases fiscal transparency and accountability for uncompensated care costs. The bill proceeds to the Senate calendar.