Summary#

SB 162, the Sensitive Test Results Protection Act, failed and did not change Colorado law. It would have added a section to the Colorado Revised Statutes, with the stated goal of giving a health-care provider time to review certain test results before they appear in a patient’s electronic health record or portal.

• Starting July 1, 2027, covered results could not be released through a patient’s electronic health record or portal until at least three business days after they are finalized.
• A patient’s physician or treating health-care provider could authorize earlier release. The bill’s final text does not include an exception for a patient’s request.
• The delay would apply to pathology or radiology reports ordered to diagnose or monitor cancer, and test results that may reveal a genetic marker related to cancer.
• The person who administers and controls a patient’s electronic health record would have to implement the delay.
• A person would not face civil, criminal or administrative liability, or professional discipline, for failing to comply.

What it means for you#

• Patients: Because the bill failed, it does not delay access to results. Had it passed, the delay would have applied only to the test results defined in the bill, and a provider could have authorized earlier release.
• Physicians and treating health-care providers: The bill would have allowed them to authorize early release. It would not have required them to review results, contact patients, or discuss results during the delay.
• Electronic health record controllers: Had the bill passed, the person administering and controlling the record would have had to implement the delay. The bill did not set out a specific method.
• Current law: The supplied materials do not include the relevant current law, so I could not verify how the bill’s proposal would have changed existing state or federal requirements.

Money#

No cost estimate or funding amount is in the available material.

• The bill would have required electronic health record controllers to implement the delay, but it did not provide money for that work.
• Software or staff costs are possible, but the materials do not estimate them.

What is unclear#

• The bill does not explain how to decide when a result is “finalized,” or how to count the three business days.
• It does not set out how a provider would authorize early release or how that authorization would be recorded.
• It does not define how to determine whether a result “may reveal” a cancer-related genetic marker.
• The bill says a person is not liable or subject to discipline for failing to comply, but does not describe oversight or other ways compliance would be checked.
• The bill’s legislative declaration describes federal rules and state authority, but the supplied materials do not include those rules or the current Colorado law for comparison.

Case for#

• The bill’s stated concern is that patients might misunderstand distressing or unexpected results without a provider’s guidance.
• A short delay could give a provider time to review covered results and, if appropriate, share them with medical guidance and support.
• The bill would have limited the delay to specified cancer-related pathology, radiology and genetic results, rather than all test results.
• A provider could have authorized immediate release when appropriate.

Case against#

• The delay would have applied even when a patient wanted immediate access; the final text provides no patient-request exception.
• The bill would have created no duty for a provider to review results or contact the patient during the delay.
• It is unclear how the delay would work in practice, including how it would be applied across electronic health record systems.
• The bill would have required implementation but gave no cost estimate or funding, and it shielded people from liability or discipline for failing to comply.