[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6076639,"mediaKeyId","2969017-080ba4e2d17c53bfd384c6117de00ff2","parentId",2969017,"title","Committee adopts amendment extending Vermont protections to out-of-state providers and tightens patient-data limits","audioSeconds",1230,"startMs",17755,"endMs",1247960,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2969017-080ba4e2d17c53bfd384c6117de00ff2&start=17&end=1247","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2969017-080ba4e2d17c53bfd384c6117de00ff2/thumbnail_17755.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6076639/Vermont/Committee-adopts-amendment-extending-Vermont-protections-to-out-of-state-providers-and-tightens-patient-data-limits","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6076639-ade86993b5227400357e41a3a072a2f6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771194676&Signature=A-qLetjtVmGFeRFAiwjTxVn0usgmosLCYHAaJuqn7RmJyDRpdmNd0qjhdVR1dMuOgFRF~R6PkLXk2S827~Q3blldZlk7ZVI3Wykzall97IAFpsU8mV8B5mt719LomM-3RJMjM2WVJ9dDFxcpurO73QTh6KIdC6b2QdSqwLoJOxqLyuKekPvYxTlZkvcY5lOqplr7Yu0xKMiETQCAxjkLctc4HSTUcD1bDqB4u5DBwNIgjqMEz641~7tGD9dRe3x8o1a18~F2mCicA4hF6hZNEsHdQd3z9MIFEEv3EcKmgzyrvioIffaTnYIBFrCD5bVHvVOHO~fBiEhtlR524IkP7w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-12T07:59:09Z","article","The House Committee on Health Care on April 11 approved an amended version of S.28, an act concerning access to certain legally protected health care services, advancing a draft that expands Vermont's protections for providers and patients and tightens limits on disclosure of protected health information.

Committee members voted to adopt the bill as amended (version 3.4). The amendments add language that would extend the protections available under Vermont law to a person who previously undertook one or more acts or omissions while in another U.S. jurisdiction to aid, encourage or attempt to aid or encourage legally protected reproductive or gender-affirming health care services, provided those acts were lawful where they occurred; they also expand an existing noncooperation shield to federal investigations and refine exceptions to a proposed ban on certain disclosures of protected health information.

The measure as amended places the new cross‑jurisdiction protection in the statutory definition of \"legally protected health care activity,\" and adds a separate change to the consumer-protection chapter by revising the definition of \"health care services\" to list medical, dental, behavioral health, mental health, substance use disorder treatment, surgical, psychiatric, diagnostic, preventive, rehabilitative and supportive services.

\"This is S.28. It is an act relating to access to certain legally protected health care services,\" said Jen Carvey, Office of Legislative Counsel, as she summarized the draft and the changes in context. Carvey told the committee the cross‑jurisdiction provision aims to ensure that \"the protections available to persons who engage in legally protected health care activity shall also apply to a person who has previously undertaken . . . acts or omissions while in another U.S. jurisdiction\" if those acts were permitted where they were performed.

Carvey said the draft also revises an existing noncooperation statute (originally passed in 2023) to make clear that a public agency or individual acting for a public agency may not knowingly provide information or use resources to further an interstate or federal investigation or proceeding that seeks to impose civil or criminal liability for providing or seeking legally protected health care activity that is lawful in Vermont. She described a narrow set of exceptions, including compliance with orders of a Vermont state or federal court and ordinary-course disclosures required by Vermont's Medicaid program.

On patient privacy, the amended language would prohibit a covered entity or business associate from disclosing protected health information that is identifiable or susceptible to re‑identification and that relates to legally protected health care activity to any government entity other than the State of Vermont or its subdivisions when there is reason to believe the information will be used to investigate or pursue liability for the mere act of seeking, obtaining, providing or facilitating legally protected health care activity. The draft keeps a court-ordered exception but would require the issuing court to include a finding that the information will not be used to impose liability or professional discipline solely for engaging in legally protected care.

Committee members asked procedural and scope questions during the markup, including whether the provision would affect extradition or private actors; Carvey said the changes are intended to limit state cooperation rather than physically prevent a person from traveling to Vermont.

Action and vote: The committee moved to adopt S.28 as amended (version 3.4). A roll-call portion recorded the following votes: Representative Chen — Yes; Representative Cortes — Yes; Representative Critchlow — Yes; Representative DeMar — No; Representative Goldman — Yes; Representative Houghton — Yes; Representative Paige — No; Representative Powers — No; Representative Rebecca — Yes; Representative McFarlane — Yes; Representative Black — Yes. Recorded tally from the roll-call entries in the transcript: 8 Yes, 3 No. The motion passed.

The committee asked staff to produce a clean, non‑highlighted draft for final clearance; Representative Brooke Ecko was named as the floor reporter to present the committee's action.

Background and context: Committee counsel said much of the bill collects, renumbers and clarifies existing protections and adds targeted expansions reflecting concerns about cross‑jurisdiction enforcement against providers and patients involved in reproductive and gender‑affirming services. The bill links the consumer-protection definition of \"health care services\" to the statute for legally protected activities, explicitly adding \"substance use disorder treatment\" to that listing for consumer-protection purposes.

Next steps: The committee approved the amendment and will report the measure to the floor with the adopted changes.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Healthcare - 2025-04-11 - 3:20 PM","oneSentenceSummary","The House Committee on Health Care on April 11 approved an amended version of S.28, expanding Vermont's legal protections for people who engaged in legally protected reproductive or gender-affirming health care in other U.S. jurisdictions and tightening limits on disclosure of protected health information.","taxTitle","Health Care, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",30956,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6076634,"Committee concurs with Senate changes to Office of the Health Care Advocate bill, narrows certificate-of-need questioning",306,1249975,1556764,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2969017-080ba4e2d17c53bfd384c6117de00ff2&start=1249&end=1556","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2969017-080ba4e2d17c53bfd384c6117de00ff2/thumbnail_1249975.jpg","/articles/6076634/Vermont/Committee-concurs-with-Senate-changes-to-Office-of-the-Health-Care-Advocate-bill-narrows-certificate-of-need-questioning","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6076634-4b90b53db98671a86ce6a4b6e6d7e51f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771194676&Signature=nRr553hIgMqbRrg2YJVR9F~FKEYcR78JYiLdoiDZu7TNXViv~BqmTuQGnUWtXAJXfJqNGHsUyPj5g2sE6Ny5KbNl4d9o0xICBeIGftJKqlwaPUKmdgSN7Ek~lzqxcWgztWUUNfq7PsLvZ7eHys554HK9kGQpe83Vzp6AC-DnwhPuf05XVTgn2XcPzf9RLKo24AtiWQ3UgAoW0ITMVhmreitB0WFGSYyg5jhCMDoJgu6l-lFmyBFnzKg~U5mTvhfAj3r8Tt8C9snhXhSjOOXMxPWLRm6S8QcFakFLMi8717Xbi1WCyrXtLnXNUJFatq0Nyxclx8Q~S6v8uwhnRtNrMw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Committee on Health Care indicated support for Senate amendments to H.80 on April 11, agreeing by straw poll to a package of technical and substantive edits that narrow the Office of the Health Care Advocate's participation in certificate-of-need proceedings and clarify consent and consultation requirements.

Committee staff presented the Senate's edits as a strike-all markup for ease of review and noted the changes to three areas: the certificate-of-need process, the office's authority to obtain provider and insurer records, and the expectation that state agencies seek input from the Office of the Health Care Advocate on major policy matters affecting access and affordability.

Under the Senate language, the committee was told, the office and the long-term care ombudsman would be treated as interested parties in certificate-of-need proceedings but would no longer have the authority to question employees of the review board. Committee counsel said the board and the Office of the Health Care Advocate agreed that allowing interested parties to directly question board employees was not appropriate.

\"We agreed with the board that it didn't make sense for us,\" said Mike Fisher, Healthcare Advocate, indicating his office was comfortable with removing the direct questioning language.

The draft also makes permissive adjustments to records requests: a provider or insurer may require written consent from the individual (or the individual's guardian or legal representative) before furnishing records to the office. Committee counsel explained this language reflects stakeholders' desire for clarity that a written authorization might be necessary rather than a verbal consent.

Finally, the bill's language asking state agencies to \"seek input\" from the Office of the Health Care Advocate was narrowed to specify the General Assembly's intent that agencies seek input when developing or revising \"significant matters\" of state policy affecting health care access and affordability, addressing agency concerns that the original phrasing could be read to require input on routine decisions.

Action and vote: The committee took a straw poll to support H.80 as amended by the Senate; committee counsel reported the straw poll result as 9-0-2 (9 in favor, 0 opposed, 2 not present). The committee plans to report concurrence to the floor with the Senate proposal of amendment.

Next steps: Committee staff will carry the committee's concurrence to the floor; counsel indicated Wendy would report the committee's action on Tuesday.","The House Committee on Health Care on April 11 agreed by straw poll to concur with Senate changes to H.80, narrowing the Office of the Health Care Advocate's role in certificate-of-need proceedings and clarifying consent and consultation language.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6076629,"Committee adds substance-use-treatment language to medical-debt definition in S.27 amendment",319,1595455,1915080,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2969017-080ba4e2d17c53bfd384c6117de00ff2&start=1595&end=1915","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2969017-080ba4e2d17c53bfd384c6117de00ff2/thumbnail_1595455.jpg","/articles/6076629/Vermont/Committee-adds-substance-use-treatment-language-to-medical-debt-definition-in-S27-amendment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6076629-982cabd069e0e1b05e97b1d087d26445/orig.mp4?Expires=1771194676&Signature=PK1w1IGP4FyXmVWBf5EjKEzrQJqw0w7ZfrU98wFq7o1QZrvLJrzkqkgzERhQVmjecAygO1gDjhy~2G4kwRj0demUK6lnrbTmahQZ6eBS547iuKunmgoVb5uUCv2vj4F-9I0RgGt9XhKxd~TXuO0SI9WLlALbRHdZ~jCBbaf2YsrmrnbiqJeqWd~SLOK5JcnazQ1r5VcBsT-qYLw52YIVZRQOzskvALnm3OCnNsHcDrCiaLs48A47FXamrY-pHCR5bvqzZVSzADS7k159VvXJm14dcBlUr4IHk1YUe2-68lyKutgAnKqtFePFaKDE-t4-25k39FMHR6mpppHGNMLp4w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Committee members on April 11 moved an amendment to S.27 to clarify the definition of medical debt and explicitly include substance use disorder treatment in the listing of health care services that may not be reported to consumer credit reporting agencies.

The change was offered as a single-instance amendment incorporating language used in S.28: \"health care services means all supplies, care and services of a medical, dental, behavioral health, mental health, substance use disorder treatment, surgical, psychiatric, therapeutic, diagnostic, preventative, rehabilitative, or supportive nature.\" Proponents said the insertion prevents out-of-state entities such as credit reporting agencies from arguing that certain care related to behavioral health or substance use is outside the bill's protections.

One committee member who offered the amendment argued forcefully for its inclusion, saying she felt \"very, very strongly\" that the provision should remain because other jurisdictions and federal usage may employ different terminology and the bill is intended to affect out‑of‑state credit reporting behavior.

The committee conducted a show-of-hands on the amendment; the transcript records \"We got 5. Okay,\" indicating five members raised hands in support during the informal vote recorded in the markup session. Members discussed whether multiple legislators would be listed as sponsors and agreed to add names to the amendment list; staff said they would coordinate with members who wished to be listed.

Action and vote: The committee recorded a show-of-hands on the amendment to S.27 adding \"substance use disorder treatment\" to the definition of health care services; the transcript records five members in favor in the informal show-of-hands. The transcript does not record a formal roll-call on this amendment in committee during the provided excerpt.

Background and next steps: Committee counsel said the change was particularly relevant for S.27 because the statute addresses prohibitions on reporting medical debt to credit reporting agencies, which are often located outside Vermont. Counsel and members planned to add members' names to the amendment as sponsors and to carry the amendment forward when the committee reports the bill to the floor.","During markup the committee proposed and advanced an amendment to S.27 to broaden the definition of \"health care services\" for medical-debt protections to explicitly include substance use disorder treatment; proponents said the change prevents out-of-state credit reporting firms from classifying treatment as non-medical care.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee adopts amendment extending Vermont protections to out-of-state providers and tightens patient-data limits

Committee concurs with Senate changes to Office of the Health Care Advocate bill, narrows certificate-of-need questioning

Committee adds substance-use-treatment language to medical-debt definition in S.27 amendment