Policies affecting whether certain patient medical records are automatically included in the state’s health information exchange may be reconsidered if a bill that would direct the Office of Health Strategy (OHS) to review them moves forward. But a number of healthcare workers are saying the bill is not necessary and pointing to recommendations made by previous working groups.
State law requires all licensed hospitals, clinical labs, and healthcare providers that use electronic records to participate in the state-wide health information exchange, known as Connie. The exchange is run by an independent nonprofit and is intended to help coordinate healthcare, share information across providers, and reduce record-keeping requirements.
Currently, patients’ records are automatically opted into being shared on Connie and individuals who do not want to participate must opt out. Opting out does not remove all patient records from the exchange, as some records, such as for infectious diseases or controlled substances, are still required to be shared by law. Approximately 7,000 individuals have opted out of Connie.
SB 1331, which recently had a public hearing before the Public Health Committee, would direct the Office of Health Strategy commissioner to conduct a study on whether records and patient information for “certain sensitive medical procedures, including, but not limited to, plastic surgery”should be excluded from Connie. The study would also examine “current procedures relating to patient participation” and whether OHS should adopt new policies allowing residents to opt-in or opt-out of participation. OHS would be required to submit a report of its findings by no later than February 1, 2026.
Multiple individuals who spoke or submitted testimony during the public hearing were supportive of reforms to procedures for including information in Connie but pointed to previous work that has been done.
In its testimony, the Connecticut Hospital Association pointed to a 2024 law that created a working group to review regulations for Connie and make recommendations. The working group produced seven recommendations for OHS that could reform Connie, many of them aimed at enhancing patient privacy.
The Connecticut Hospital Association recommended the legislature focus on taking action on these rather than create a study.
Sumit Sajnani, OHS’ health information technology officer, also stated that the proposed study’s review had “already been comprehensively undertaken” by the 2024 working group. Testimony provided by several unions representing healthcare workers and healthcare associations also echoed similar sentiments.
Sajnani further stated that Connie’s opt-out model is currently in place out of concern an automatic opt-out policy would lead to healthcare providers missing part of an individual’s health records and providing treatments that might be contraindicated by their health history.
Other testimony in support of the bill suggested many patients are not aware Connie exists, is separate from the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) or that their records are automatically opted-in.
The Connecticut Society of Plastic Surgeons expressed concern that Connie’s automatic opt-in policy might lead to sensitive images taken as part of their treatment process being vulnerable to providers, such as a pharmacist, who have no medical reason to access them, or could be publicly exposed if that information is hacked.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
