Legislators advance bill capping attorney-requested medical-record fees and setting delivery timelines

House Bill 14 advanced out of the House Finance Committee on a 9–2 vote after sponsors said the bill will make it easier and more affordable for Coloradans to obtain their own medical records when attorneys request them.

Representative Camacho, co-prime on the bill, said the legislation sets a $400 cap on costs for attorney-requested record requests that exceed 664 pages, preserves the existing per-page statutory structure for smaller requests, and requires records to be delivered within 30 days of payment with a HIPAA-consistent 30-day extension. "Bottom line is that the medical records belong to the patient," Camacho said, urging the committee to support the bill.

Supporters said the measure fixes an inequity: when attorneys request records on behalf of clients the fees can balloon under a per-page structure, producing invoices that can reach thousands of dollars. Sam Cannon of the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association told the committee that his clients often cannot gather records themselves after serious injury and that the firms’ ethical rules prevent attorneys from absorbing those costs. "Ultimately, the clients and therefore the patients are bearing the costs of these requests," Cannon said.

Patient testimony underscored the stakes. Paul Gonzales told lawmakers that after a traumatic brain injury his attorney was billed about $6,000 to obtain records Gonzales said belonged to him, forcing him to travel in person to secure copies. "$6,000 for records that already exist belonging to me ... is outrageous," Gonzales said.

Hospital and health-information stakeholders urged careful drafting to avoid operational conflicts with federal law and undue cost-shifting to health information departments. Jason Hoffer of the Colorado Hospital Association said CHA supported the amendment offered in committee and that the changes resolved provisions that conflicted with federal law or would create unworkable operational requirements. Elizabeth McElhaney of the Alliance for Health Information Operations and Standards welcomed clarifying amendments but warned the bill could shift costs to health information offices and reduce investment in systems and staff needed to protect sensitive data.

Committee members pressed witnesses on when the cap would not apply — for example, where redaction is required under HIPAA or 42 CFR Part 2 (substance-use-disorder information), HIV-status protections, psychotherapy notes or other specially protected categories. Witnesses explained that federal rules require specific authorizations or additional review in some circumstances and that the bill’s redaction exceptions were intended to mirror those obligations.

Sponsor amendment L001, adopted in committee, clarified that the existing statutory reasonable-fee structure applies to any request under 664 pages, added an inflation adjuster to the $400 cap, extended certain invoice and delivery timelines, aligned the timeline extension to HIPAA, and added a force‑majeure definition. After adoption of L001 the committee voted to send HB14 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation; the roll-call vote was recorded as passing 9–2.

What comes next: The bill will be considered by the Committee of the Whole. If it advances, further committee action and floor votes would follow. The committee record shows stakeholder engagement shaped the amendment package; sponsors and stakeholders said they remain available to refine language on redaction and operational mechanics.