Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration And Health Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to bar health workers from asking patients’ immigration status
Summary
The House Health and Human Services Committee heard testimony for and against HB 6244, which would prohibit health‑care personnel from asking patients about immigration status. Supporters said the bill would reduce fear that deters care; some clinicians said knowing status can affect care coordination and insurance enrollment.
Chairwoman Donovan opened a hearing on House Bill 6244, which would prohibit health‑care personnel and facilities from asking patients about their immigration status.
Supporters led by Madeline McGungal of the ACLU of Rhode Island said the bill addresses a real barrier to care: immigrants sometimes avoid medical treatment for fear of immigration enforcement. "We don't think that anyone should have to choose between necessary medical care and keeping their families safe," McGungal testified, arguing that intake questions can become proxies for discrimination and that providers should not serve as immigration‑enforcement agents.
Opponents included Dr. Howard Shulman, a primary‑care physician with three decades of practice in Rhode Island, who said questions about immigration can be a legitimate tool for assessing social determinants of health and for connecting patients to benefits. Using a patient case from his practice, Shulman said discussing immigration status helped him advise the patient about insurance options. "Immigration status was a social determinant of health," he said, arguing a ban could limit clinicians’ ability to provide appropriate referrals and support.
Committee members pressed witnesses on privacy safeguards and on whether non‑legislative measures—such as signage explaining why questions are asked and assuring patients care will not be affected—could address trust concerns. Representative Kislak noted both statutory privacy protections like HIPAA and recent changes in interagency data‑sharing arrangements that have increased community fear of disclosure; the ACLU witness said signage and clearer practice‑level communications were worth exploring.
The hearing closed without a committee vote. Chairwoman Donovan neither advanced nor defeated the bill during the session; the committee instead gathered testimony and questions for further consideration.
