Vermont committee hears support, privacy and AI concerns as bill would allow recording of telehealth therapy sessions

MONTPELIER — Supporters told the House Health Care Committee on Wednesday that allowing patients and clinicians to record telehealth therapy sessions under H.84 would bolster clinician training and help maintain fidelity to evidence-based treatments.

Karen Curley, chief clinical and program search at Washington County Mental Health, said recordings are essential for supervision and training. "Having access to the actual session and being able to see it for myself helps me then be able to provide the trainee with the best supervision to become the best clinician," she said, describing graduate internship requirements and the role recordings play in giving supervisors an accurate view of sessions.

Kelsey Stadozeth, executive director at Northeast Human Services and co‑president of Vermont Care Partners, told the committee agencies use augmented technology to support documentation and fidelity checks but stressed it cannot replace clinician judgment. She said tools such as scribe or dictation features can shorten documentation work but "it's not a replacement of actively writing your notes."

Both witnesses described steps agencies take to protect patient privacy: obtaining verbal and written informed consent, restricting access through information‑technology guardrails, vetting vendors with business associate agreements and legal review, and routinely deleting or destroying recordings after use. "We destroy the recordings after we utilize them," Curley said, noting supervisors commonly remove recordings within about 30 days.

Committee members pressed witness on technical and policy safeguards. Lawmakers asked whether recordings are stored in electronic health records; Curley said sessions are recorded outside the EHR (she cited use of Teams and an EHR called MyAvatar) and then managed under agency policies. Witnesses described password protections, multi‑factor authentication, audit logs and random checks to detect unauthorized access.

The hearing also turned to questions about artificial intelligence and vendor origins. Stadozeth described a product called Helios that offers transcription and suggested notes; one legislator asked whether taxpayer dollars support Helios and raised constituent emails alleging the company's CEO has military ties abroad. Stadozeth said that vendor relationships and data use are governed by agreements and that data for supervision purposes is not retained for other uses.

Mike Fisher, the state health care advocate, told the committee he would not oppose H.84 but urged caution about downstream effects. "I am not going to oppose this bill nor am I going to ask you to make any edits to the bill," Fisher said, while warning that AI note‑taking can increase the number and complexity of claims and thus affect utilization and financing. Committee members cited the Green Mountain Care Board's rate‑setting work as a mechanism that could address reimbursement or coding changes tied to new documentation practices.

Legislators asked staff to clarify existing telehealth statutes and said they would hear from legislative counsel later in the morning; the committee recessed briefly and planned to reconvene at 10:15. No formal vote was recorded during the session.

The committee's discussion emphasized three policy tensions: expanding tools that aid training and access to care, ensuring strong privacy and contractual safeguards for patient health information, and monitoring how new documentation tools could affect billing and utilization. Witnesses and committee members agreed on the need for clear implementation plans, oversight and separate policies governing any clinical use of AI.

Next steps: legislative counsel was scheduled to review current telehealth statute and staff indicated the committee may proceed toward a vote after that review.