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 seconded by Senator Ryan; the transcript records a voice vote but does not provide an individual roll-call tally.

S.1623: patient control over sensitive information in electronic health records

Senate Bill 1623, sponsored by Senator Fernandez, would expand protections for sensitive health information and require health information networks, electronic health record systems and health care providers to provide patients a right to restrict disclosure of specified sensitive health information. The measure prompted the meeting's most extended exchange, touching on electronic health-record integrity, reproductive care, and interstate legal risks.

Why it mattered: Proponents framed the bill as protecting people from the possible use of medical records for criminalization; opponents and some members raised concerns that allowing patients to restrict access to parts of their electronic medical record could undermine clinical decision-making when providers elsewhere need complete information.

Senator Morris said he was concerned that allowing selective removal of items from a record could leave later treating clinicians without key information: “How can somebody remove that from their record when it occurred here in New York… and then be potentially criminalized for having that performed in another state?” He argued the change could reduce clinicians’ confidence that they have a complete record when treating a patient who cannot speak for themselves. The sponsor and supporters countered that the bill does not seek to “excise” information but to establish guarded, confidential access for certain sensitive entries — and that state and federal protections (including HIPAA) remain in place.

Senator Jackson and other members noted there are technical and operational concerns: electronic record systems and note narratives sometimes mix material, and the bill would raise questions about how to maintain selective protections within a single clinical record. Senator Gallivan announced he would vote in the negative, explicitly citing patient-safety and record-integrity concerns.

Outcome: The committee moved S.1623 to first reading (voice vote). The motion was made by Senator Parker and seconded by Senator Gonzales. A recorded “nay” was spoken by at least one member on the floor; the transcript records voice voting and does not provide a roll-call tally.

Votes at a glance: other committee actions

Beyond the two items above, the committee took action on a broad set of bills, usually by voice vote, sending most to first reading or to the Finance Committee. The transcript records the following outcomes (motion language and referral listed as in the committee): - S.20 (Steck): reported to first reading (moved/second not specified in transcript excerpt). - S.354: reported to first reading (moved by Senator Jackson; seconded by Senator Gonzales). - S.1616: referred to Finance (described as requiring Medicaid managed care organizations to reimburse durable medical equipment providers at no less than 100% of the Medicaid fee schedule). - S.1716A: change community health assessment frequency from every 2 years to every 6 years; reported to first reading. - S.2625: expand access to medication‑assisted treatment by allowing pharmacists to provide certain MAT medications under a non‑patient‑specific, standing order (includes language specifying buprenorphine); referred to Finance. - S.3294: technical changes to the medical cannabis program; reported to first reading. - S.3356A: Lab Services Accessibility Act (limited exceptions for payment arrangements for laboratory testing); reported to first reading. - S.33588: statewide standard for electronic visit verification for home-care claims; reported to first reading. - S.3364: establish an Office and advisory panel for the Medical Indemnity Fund; referred to Finance. - S.3416D: allow institutional dispensers to dispense controlled substances off‑premises in emergencies and authorize certain practitioner dispensing for detoxification; referred to Finance. - S.3457: Promoting Ethical Testing Solutions Fund; referred to Finance. - S.3486: require public listing of hospitals’ rule‑based exclusions (e.g., institutions that exclude coverage for certain services); reported to first reading. - S.3768: increase reimbursement and remove prior authorization for transportation to emergency care; referred to Finance. - S.4462B: authorize Medicaid coverage for complex care assistance services; referred to Finance. - S.4585: consolidate oversight of continuing care retirement communities under the Commissioner of Health; reported to first reading. - S.49169: require hospitals to offer psychiatric care or referral to victims of firearm violence; reported to first reading. - S.5401: establish a Clinical Trial Access and Education Fund (subject to appropriation); referred to Finance (moved by Senator Jackson; seconded by Senator Rosales). - S.5624: define enforcement officers in a large city for tobacco/vaping regulation; reported to first reading. - S.5981: create a comprehensive reproductive health program; referred to Finance. - S.6223A: ensure interpreters may remain with deaf, hard of hearing and nonverbal patients during hospital admission; reported to first reading. - S.6266: establish a quality incentive program for Medicaid managed care providers; referred to Finance. - S.6578: standards for release of identifying information from the adoption registry (consent); reported to first reading. - S.6980: create a temporary state commission to study Brooklyn; reported to first reading. - S.77052: adjust rates of payment for certified home health agencies; referred to Finance. - S.7408: require food-service businesses to accept reasonable reusable customer-provided containers; reported to first reading. - S.7460: maternal‑infant care centers pilot program (repeal on expiration); referred to Finance. - S.7531: require certain reports from licensed home care service agencies and set a 90‑day window for responses; reported to first reading.

(Each of the items above is recorded in the committee transcript as moved and advanced by voice vote or referred to Finance; the transcript does not record individual roll-call tallies for these motions.)

What was not decided or remains in committee

Several bills were held, pulled from the agenda, or the sponsor asked the committee to hold the measure for further work; the transcript records at least two items pulled for additional work (one bill explicitly “pulled” by the chair). The committee frequently referred bills to Finance for further consideration as noted above.

Meeting context and next steps

The committee spent an extended session moving a large number of bills and holding substantive debate on patient privacy in electronic records and on limits to testing of pregnant and postpartum patients and newborns. For the two measures discussed at length, committee members asked for clarifications about operational details and potential clinical consequences; both bills nonetheless moved forward to the next procedural step. Further debate, amendments or roll-call votes may occur when the measures reach the floor or when fiscal committees consider the Finance‑referred items.

Quotes from the record

“‘For these tests to happen, the patient has either give consent or there has to be a situation of medical emergency,’” — sponsor of S.845 (Senator Salazar) explaining exceptions in the bill.

“‘How can somebody remove that from their record when it occurred here in New York… and then be potentially criminalized for having that performed in another state?’” — Senator Morris, on concerns about cross‑jurisdictional risks and record‑integrity.

Ending

The committee concluded after advancing the agenda; many of the bills will now await scheduling for first reading or review by the Senate Finance Committee. Lawmakers signaled that technical fixes and implementation questions raised in the discussion (particularly for S.1623) may be addressed in subsequent drafting and committee review.