House approves changes to collaborative management program after heated debate over consent language

The Colorado House approved House Bill 1035 on third reading after extended floor debate focused on an amendment concerning release of medical records and which individuals can provide written consent. The bill passed final passage 40 yes, 24 no, with 1 excused.

Representative Paschall, the bill sponsor, said the amendment discussed during committee was intended to clarify that the bill would not change existing rights for releasing medical records, including provisions concerning children under age 12. “The intent, the goal of this amendment was to state that no changes being brought forward by this law, new bill, changes anything about individuals' rights, in terms of their ability to release their medical records,” Paschall said, and she told the chamber stakeholders would work to craft clearer language with the Senate sponsor.

Rep. Bradley rose to move that the bill be referred back to the committee of origin (to “seconds”), arguing the committee amendment created ambiguity and could permit written consent by children. “This is the second bill that we're sending to the senate to clean up our mess,” Bradley said, asking members to send the bill back to fix language rather than rely on the Senate.

Representative de Graaf and other members joined the debate, pressing that the phrase in the bill allowing release of records "upon the written consent of the child" could be interpreted broadly. De Graaf pointed to multiple Colorado statute sections and warned the language could be “weaponized” against children: “Nothing in this section prohibits the release of records created by the individualized service and support team upon the written consent of the child,” he said, adding that if the language can be misused, it should be tightened on the House floor.

Representative Bottoms emphasized legislative drafting norms: “If there's an ambiguous statement in a bill ... it means what the wording says,” she told the chamber, and urged members not to leave ambiguous provisions for the Senate to resolve. Assistant Minority Leader Winter and Minority Leader Puglisi framed concerns in parental-rights terms, describing instances where parents had been denied access to medical records and pressing for clearer statutory limits on who can consent.

Members voted on Bradley’s motion to refer the bill back to committee. The motion failed on a roll call — 22 in favor, 42 opposed, 1 excused — after which a separate motion to allow a third-reading amendment to define "family" and tighten the language failed (21 yes, 43 no, 1 excused). Despite the failed procedural motions, the House then voted on final passage; House Bill 1035 was adopted on third reading 40 yes, 24 no, 1 excused.

Sponsor Paschall said stakeholders will draft an amendment in the Senate to clarify that the bill does not change existing rules about consent or access to medical records and invited feedback. “Seeing as we can't amend it here, what we're gonna do is go forward. Work on an amendment to clarify the language ... crafted by stakeholders,” Paschall said on the floor.

The debate centered on statutory definitions (including references on the floor to sections in Title 14, Title 19, Title 25 and other code sections) and on whether terms such as “child,” “youth,” and “family” were sufficiently defined in the collaborative-management statute to avoid unintended changes in consent authority. Several members urged returning the bill to committee to correct what they described as an unclear last-minute amendment; proponents warned that returning it would delay statutory changes the bill aims to make.

The House’s roll-call votes were recorded by the clerk. After the final vote, the Speaker announced, “With 40 I, 24 no, and 1 excused, House Bill 10 35 is adopted.” The sponsor said the planned stakeholder-driven clarifying amendment would be introduced in the Senate.

This floor action does not by itself change the statutory text until the enrolled bill is transmitted and any senate changes are reconciled; members on both sides indicated follow-up work would be done in the Senate to more tightly define consent language.

Votes and key procedural actions related to HB1035: - Motion to refer to committee (seconds): failed, 22 yes, 42 no, 1 excused. - Motion for permission to run a third-reading amendment: failed, 21 yes, 43 no, 1 excused. - Final passage: adopted on third reading, 40 yes, 24 no, 1 excused.