Bill to let DBHDS scan and deliver sealed mail electronically raises privacy and operational questions
Loading...
Summary
HB 13O4, an agency bill to allow sealed letter mail to be delivered to DBHDS residents in electronic or paper formats (including scanned delivery to secure tablets), was carried by for the day after committee members and providers raised privacy, implementation and scope concerns; the committee directed the behavioral‑health subcommittee to review agency amendment language.
Delegate Ware introduced HB 13O4, an agency bill that would amend Chapter 37.2‑400 A.7 to permit sealed letter mail for people in DBHDS care to be provided in either paper or electronic format. Ware said the change would let letters be scanned and delivered via secure tablets or, where tablets are unavailable, provided as photocopies, a step intended to reduce the delivery of illicit substances into treatment facilities.
"It would prevent the delivery of illicit substances into these treatment facilities, reducing the risk of overdose medical emergencies and staff exposure to contaminated material," Delegate Ware said, explaining sponsor intent and citing instances of letters allegedly soaked with illicit substances.
Committee members pressed on practical implementation and privacy. Delegate Nicole Cole asked, "So would this prevent mail from coming in, or how would this prevent mail from coming in?" Ware replied that mail would not be prevented from arriving but could be delivered to recipients via a secure tablet or photocopy, potentially performed by a third‑party vendor.
Delegate Hope raised privacy concerns about third‑party vendors reading mail. Angela Torres, chief forensic officer for DBHDS, said such vendor scanning systems are used in other correctional and mental health settings and that the work would be arranged through contractual and Office of Human Rights processes to maintain confidentiality: "They have assurances that it's all done, confidentially. Like I said, many other states do engage in this." She added that implementation details — including whether facilities or individuals decide which format is used — would be worked out in policies and by the Office of Human Rights.
Provider representatives told the committee the bill’s statutory placement could unintentionally sweep in smaller developmental‑disability group homes. Jennifer Fedura of the Virginia Network of Private Providers said the current code section applies to all DBHDS‑licensed individuals and warned: "I don't know what the expectation would be ... for us to be able to provide electronic mail." She urged clarity for providers about operational expectations.
Delegate Ware told the committee the agency provided amendment language that would add limiting language to the section (an explanatory clause allowing limits "consistent with his condition"). Rather than vote on the amendment, the committee agreed to route the amendment language to the behavioral‑health subcommittee for detailed review. The committee then voted to "pass by" HB 13O4 for the day so that subcommittee review and any technical edits can occur.
What’s next: the behavioral‑health subcommittee will review the agency amendment language and implementation questions — including individual opt‑out, privacy safeguards for third‑party scanning, and whether the statutory language should be narrowed to exclude certain residential settings — and will report back to the full committee.
