Summary#

Medical Record Requests amends two existing Colorado laws: sections 25-1-801 and 25-1-802, covering records held by health-care facilities and individual providers. Its stated goal is to set rules for providing those records, including fees, formats and timing.

• Health-care facilities, providers and certain health-care entities must provide records to patients or their personal representatives on request and payment of applicable fees. Third-party requests generally require a HIPAA-compliant authorization, valid subpoena or court order.
• For an attorney representing a patient or the patient’s personal representative, fees for a request exceeding 664 pages are capped at $400. The cap is adjusted for inflation every two years starting in 2028; it does not apply when the facility or provider must segregate, withhold or redact protected health information.
• Records must be provided electronically if requested, stored electronically and readily producible in that format.
• The requester must receive an invoice within 30 days of a valid request. A facility or provider may extend the time to provide records by 30 days if it gives written notice within the first 30 days.
• Records not provided within 30 days, without a written extension, must be provided at no cost, subject to an exception for qualifying force majeure events (events outside the parties’ control that make performance impossible or impracticable).

What it means for you#

• Patients and personal representatives: The bill does not create a new right to obtain records; the amended sections already include a duty to provide them. It adds format and timing rules. Payment of applicable fees is still required, except where the no-cost late-delivery rule applies.
• Attorneys representing patients or personal representatives: For requests over 664 pages, the total fee is capped at $400, subject to the redaction exception. The cap is adjusted for inflation, but cannot fall below $400.
• Other third-party requesters: The bill requires a qualifying authorization, subpoena or court order and payment of reasonable fees. It does not set the same $400 cap for requests made by someone other than the patient’s attorney.
• Health-care facilities, providers and covered entities: They must meet the new format, invoice, notice and timing rules. They do not have to disclose information protected from disclosure under state or federal law.
• General public: The bill does not change taxes, create a new public service or require disclosure of privileged or otherwise protected information.

Money#

No cost estimate is provided in the supplied material.

• Facilities and providers may have to spend staff time and resources to meet the new requirements; the amount is not stated.
• The fee cap may reduce fees collected for some large requests. Late records may have to be provided at no cost, except under the stated force majeure rule.
• The Secretary of State must publish the inflation-adjusted fee limit. No cost estimate for that duty is provided.

What is unclear#

• The full current versions of sections 25-1-801 and 25-1-802 were not supplied, so the existing rules and how these changes interact with them could not be independently verified.
• The text does not explain how the 30-day record-delivery deadline works alongside the requirement to provide an invoice within 30 days and deliver records upon payment.
• It is unclear how the redaction exception applies when only part of a record needs to be withheld or redacted.
• The text does not set out an enforcement process, appeal route or penalty for failing to meet the requirements.
• The stated start date is August 12, 2026, under the text’s assumption about the legislature’s adjournment, but the materials do not say whether a referendum petition was filed.

Case for#

• A fee cap for some large requests could make it easier for patients’ attorneys to obtain extensive records without unlimited charges.
• A deadline, written extension notice and no-cost rule for late records give requesters clearer expectations and a remedy for delays.
• Electronic delivery when records are readily available in that format could make it easier for requesters to receive and use them.

Case against#

• One concern is that the $400 cap applies only to requests by a patient’s attorney or the attorney of a personal representative, not to every third-party requester.
• The redaction exception could remove the cap when protected information must be separated or withheld; the text does not explain how that exception applies in mixed records.
• Facilities and providers may face added costs and administrative work, but the materials give no estimate.
• The timing rules may be hard to apply consistently because the bill ties the invoice, payment and record-delivery deadlines together without fully explaining their relationship.