Health committee advances dozens of bills; debates focus on drug testing for birthing people and electronic health-record privacy

The New York State Senate Standing Committee on Health on May 13, 2025, advanced a large package of bills to first reading or to the Finance Committee, with extended debate on two measures that drew sustained questions from members: S.845 (limits on drug, cannabis and alcohol testing of pregnant and postpartum individuals and newborns) and S.1623 (expanded rights to restrict disclosure of sensitive health information in electronic systems).

S.845: limit on drug testing for birthing people and newborns

Senate Bill 845, sponsored in the committee by Senator Salazar, would bar drug, cannabis or alcohol testing of pregnant and postpartum individuals and newborns except if the patient gives consent, there is a medical emergency, or the test falls within the scope of medical care for that condition. After a round of questions, the committee moved the bill to first reading by voice vote.

Why it mattered: Supporters framed the bill as a privacy and access measure. As the sponsor summarized, the bill establishes that “for these tests to happen, the patient has either give[n] consent or there has to be a situation of medical emergency, or it has to be within the scope of medical care for these for this test.” Opponents and some questioners pressed how the standard would work in practice when a patient cannot communicate or give informed consent.

Senator Jackson asked whether the rule applies only to pregnant and postpartum individuals and newborns; the sponsor confirmed it does. Senator Martin pressed the practical consequences: “So under what circumstances would a health care professional be able to perform a test on either a mother or a child under these circumstances? Does there have to be an emergency…or do they suspect that there's something that is causing distress to the child that they'll be able to unilaterally in their judgment, be able to actually perform a test?”

The sponsor responded that consent is required when a patient can communicate, and that a medical emergency or a determination of medical necessity would permit testing without prior consent so long as the testing and results remain confidential and are used only by those who need the information for medical care. Senator Martin continued to press whether the rule would force clinicians to “wait for an emergency so that the child has to be in distress before they actually can do something,” and the sponsor said the statute calls for a clinical determination of medical necessity rather than a requirement that a child be visibly in distress.

Outcome: The committee moved S.845 to first reading (voice vote). The committee record shows the bill was moved by Senator Jackson and…