Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Patient Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee lays over bill to delay release of high‑stakes cancer test results after split testimony
Summary
Sponsors asked the committee to lay over Senate Bill 162, which would allow a 3 business‑day pause before patient portals publish certain cancer‑related pathology and radiology reports; patients and oncologists gave sharply different views and an amendment shifts technical and indemnity duties to EHR vendors.
The House Health & Human Services Committee laid over Senate Bill 162 on Feb. 25 after lengthy testimony from sponsors, patients and medical groups about whether the state should permit a short delay before certain high‑stakes pathology and radiology results are released to patient portals.
Sponsor Representative Hamrick told the committee the bill creates a "thoughtful 3 day business day pause" for the digital release of narrowly defined sensitive test results — pathology and radiology reports used to diagnose or monitor cancer and genetic markers related to cancer — beginning Jan. 1, 2028. She said a provider could always authorize immediate release if appropriate and that the bill is intended to give physicians time to contact patients with context and support.
Supporters from medicine and hospitals — including the Colorado Medical Society, the Colorado Oncology Society and hospital associations — said the pause can prevent anxiety and avoid misinterpretation of complex reports. Colorado Medical Society President Brigitte Robinson said the pause is "time for the ordering physician to review sensitive results and reach out to the patient before the results appear in their portal." Emma Hudson read testimony from an oncologist who described cases where an initial scan was later judged benign after full review.
Patients and patient advocates pushed back. Mike Boone, who described being diagnosed with colorectal cancer, said immediate access through portals helped him secure rapid specialist care and that the bill as written puts providers, rather than patients, in control of access. Several patient witnesses asked for an explicit amendment allowing patients to opt out of the delay or to set a standing preference.
Operational questions dominated the technical discussion. Witnesses representing rural hospitals and vendors told the committee that many electronic health record systems cannot selectively delay specific reports without a costly custom build; estimates for some small hospitals ranged from "$20,000 to $50,000" for EMR custom work. Sponsors described an amendment (L002) that would shift the technical burden to EHR vendors, require vendors to indemnify providers, and exempt hospitals that host their own internal systems from being treated as commercial vendors.
The committee took no final vote and agreed to lay over the bill so sponsors can refine language, including clarifications about whether patients can directly opt out of the delay and further operational fixes for rural providers and vendors.
