Individual notice deadline
In the most expedient time possible, without unreasonable delay, and within 30 days after the date of determination that a security breach has occurred, subject to the specified law-enforcement delay.
The outer bound of 30 days is materially shorter than HIPAA's 60-day individual-notice window. Federal and state duties apply independently.
Source: Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-716 (material 30-day breach regime enacted by HB18-1128, effective September 1, 2018; further amended by HB26-1426, effective August 12, 2026 — see notes for currency detail)
Statewide rules that also reach urgent care centers
Minor may consent
A minor eighteen years of age or older, or a minor fifteen years of age or older who is living separate and apart from a parent or legal guardian — with or without their consent — and is managing their own financial affairs regardless of the source of income, or any minor who has contracted a lawful marriage, may consent to organ or tissue donation or to the furnishing of hospital, medical, dental, emergency health and surgical care to themselves. The consent is not subject to disaffirmance because of minority, and the minor has the same rights, powers and obligations as if they had attained majority. Parental consent is not necessary, and no hospital, physician, surgeon, dentist, trained emergency health-care provider or their agent or employee who in good faith relies on such a minor's consent is liable for civil damages for failure to secure the parent's consent.
What this means operationally
The Colorado route that reaches beyond behavioral health — it names dental and surgical care expressly and is not tied to a service list. Fifteen is a lower age floor than the equivalent status routes in Texas, Virginia and Washington, all of which use sixteen. The good-faith reliance protection names dentists and trained emergency health-care providers among those covered, so it is not confined to physicians.
Applies when
- The minor is 15 or older, living separate and apart from a parent, and managing their own financial affairs
- Or the minor has contracted a lawful marriage
Exceptions
- Except as otherwise provided in §§ 15-19-204, 18-1.3-407(4.5) and 25-4-409
Payment liability
The parent, parents or legal guardian of a minor described in § 13-22-103(1) shall not be liable to pay the charges for care provided to the minor on that minor's consent, unless the parent, parents or legal guardian agrees to be so liable.
What this means operationally
Colorado uses an AGREEMENT test rather than California's or Maryland's participation test, which puts it alongside Massachusetts at the stricter end: a parent who drives the minor to the appointment, or who is the insurance subscriber, has not agreed to pay. The agreement has to be obtained, which makes it a front-desk step and not an inference from the demographic record.
Applies when
- Care was provided on the consent of a minor described in § 13-22-103(1)
Exceptions
- A parent or guardian who agrees to be liable is liable
Duty to keep an accurate record
For the purposes of § 25-1-802, MEDICAL INFORMATION TRANSMITTED DURING THE DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE VIA TELEMEDICINE, as defined in § 12-240-104(10), IS PART OF THE PATIENT'S MEDICAL RECORD maintained by a health-care provider.
What this means operationally
This closes the gap a practice would otherwise argue: material generated in a telehealth encounter is not ancillary correspondence, it is the medical record, and every access, copying, format, timing and inspection-logging duty in the section reaches it. The practical consequence is about systems rather than policy — where a telemedicine platform holds session data outside the EHR, that data is still the record and must be retrievable and producible on the same clocks. A practice that cannot export from its telehealth vendor has a records problem, not a vendor problem.
Applies when
- Health care is delivered via telemedicine as defined in § 12-240-104(10)
Parental right of access
Every patient record in the custody of an enumerated licensed provider, EXCEPT records withheld in accordance with 45 C.F.R. 164.524(a), MUST BE AVAILABLE to the patient or the patient's personal representative UPON SUBMISSION OF A VALID AUTHORIZATION FOR INSPECTION OF RECORDS, DATED AND SIGNED BY THE PATIENT, at reasonable times and upon reasonable notice. A SUMMARY of records pertaining to a patient's MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS may, upon written request accompanied by a signed and dated authorization, be made available to the patient or personal representative FOLLOWING TERMINATION OF THE TREATMENT PROGRAM.
What this means operationally
Colorado requires a signed, dated authorization even for the patient inspecting their OWN record, which is unusual and is a real workflow difference from states where a patient's own request needs no form. Practices should hold a compliant inspection-authorization form rather than treating a verbal or emailed ask as sufficient. The mental-health limb is narrower than it looks twice over: what is available is a SUMMARY rather than the record, and it is available only AFTER the treatment program has terminated, so a patient in active treatment has no route to it under this section.
Applies when
- A patient or personal representative submits a signed, dated authorization to inspect records held by an enumerated provider
Exceptions
- Records withheld in accordance with 45 C.F.R. § 164.524(a)
- Mental health records yield only a summary, and only after the treatment program terminates
Duty to keep an accurate record
ALL REQUESTS by a patient or the patient's personal representative for inspection of their medical records SHALL BE NOTED WITH THE TIME AND DATE OF THE REQUEST AND THE TIME AND DATE OF INSPECTION by the health-care provider or the provider's designated representative. The patient or personal representative SHALL ACKNOWLEDGE THE INSPECTION BY DATING AND SIGNING THE RECORD FILE. A health-care provider SHALL NOT CHARGE A FEE FOR THE INSPECTION of medical records.
What this means operationally
This creates a record ABOUT the record, and it is the duty Colorado practices most often have no system for. Four data points must be captured — request time, request date, inspection time, inspection date — and the patient must physically sign the file to acknowledge having seen it. An electronic portal that logs a view but collects no signature does not satisfy the acknowledgment limb. Note the fee rule: inspection is free, which is distinct from copying, so a practice that charges a records-handling fee merely to let someone look at their chart is charging for something the statute forbids.
Applies when
- A patient or personal representative requests inspection of their medical records
Parental right of access
A COPY of the records, INCLUDING RADIOGRAPHIC STUDIES, must be made available to the patient or personal representative upon request and payment of the fee A COVERED ENTITY MAY IMPOSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIPAA, or to a THIRD PERSON who requests the records upon submission of a HIPAA-compliant authorization, a valid subpoena, or a court order, and payment of reasonable fees. FOR A REQUEST NOT EXCEEDING SIX HUNDRED SIXTY-FOUR PAGES, the fees charged to a third person SHALL NOT EXCEED THE REASONABLE FEES.
What this means operationally
Colorado does not write its own per-page schedule for patient requests — it adopts the HIPAA covered-entity fee by reference, so the federal cost-based limit is the operative constraint and a practice tracking only state law will look in the wrong place. The six-hundred-and-sixty-four-page threshold is the hinge for third-party requests: at or below it, reasonable fees; above it, the separate attorney cap applies. That specific number is worth building into the billing workflow, because it is where the rule changes character.
Applies when
- A patient, personal representative or authorized third person requests copies of records
Exceptions
- Nothing requires disclosure of information privileged, confidential or protected from discovery or admission under state or federal law, including under §§ 12-30-204 and 25-3-109 or 42 U.S.C. § 1320c
Deadline to respond to an access request
An INVOICE for all records provided in response to a request for medical records MUST BE PROVIDED TO THE REQUESTOR WITHIN THIRTY DAYS of receiving a valid request, and the records must be provided UPON PAYMENT of the invoice. If a health-care provider is UNABLE to provide access within thirty days, the provider MAY EXTEND the time frame by AN ADDITIONAL THIRTY DAYS, and MUST NOTIFY THE REQUESTOR IN WRITING of the extension WITHIN THE INITIAL THIRTY-DAY PERIOD. A RECORD NOT PROVIDED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, OR WITHOUT WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF A THIRTY-DAY EXTENSION, MUST BE PROVIDED TO THE REQUESTOR AT NO COST, absent an independent intervening FORCE MAJEURE that renders the requested records inaccessible, irretrievable or undeliverable within the required time frame. Where a force majeure event prevents compliance, the provider shall give WRITTEN NOTICE as soon as reasonably practicable but NOT LATER THAN FIVE BUSINESS DAYS after becoming aware of the event; the thirty-day period recommences upon RESOLUTION of the event; the provider shall notify the requestor within five business days after resolution; and all notices must be DELIVERED IN THE SAME FORMAT IN WHICH THE REQUEST WAS RECEIVED. Force majeure means a factor outside the parties' control that makes performance impossible or impracticable as a result of an event the parties could not have anticipated or controlled.
What this means operationally
The sanction is the point: miss thirty days without a written extension notice and the records become FREE. That converts a records backlog from an administrative annoyance into direct revenue loss, and it is self-executing rather than requiring a complaint. Two traps follow. The extension notice must go out INSIDE the first thirty days — a notice on day thirty-one preserves nothing — and it must be written. The force majeure route is real but tightly policed: notice within five business days of becoming aware, a fresh thirty days only from RESOLUTION, a second notice within five business days of resolution, and every notice delivered in the same format the request arrived in, so an emailed request cannot be answered by post.
Applies when
- A valid request for medical records is received
Exceptions
- An independent intervening force majeure event, with written notice within five business days of the provider becoming aware of it
Parental right of access
As used in § 25-1-802, PATIENT RECORD DOES NOT INCLUDE A DOCTOR'S OFFICE NOTES.
What this means operationally
A single sentence that removes a whole class of material from every access, copying, format and timing duty in the section. It is narrower than the federal psychotherapy-notes exclusion and differently drawn — it turns on the material being office notes rather than on a separately maintained psychotherapy record — and Colorado does not define the term further, so the boundary between a clinical entry and an office note is left to the practice. That ambiguity cuts both ways and should not be leaned on: a practice that classifies substantive clinical content as office notes to avoid disclosure is making a judgement no authority in this section supports.
Applies when
- A request under § 25-1-802 would otherwise reach a doctor’s office notes
Limit on copy fees, format or delivery
The health-care provider MUST provide the medical records IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT if the person requests electronic format, the ORIGINAL medical records ARE STORED IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT, and the medical records ARE READILY PRODUCIBLE in electronic format. The provider SHALL DELIVER the medical records in electronic format, upon request and payment of the fees, where those three conditions are met.
What this means operationally
Three conditions, all of which must hold, and the middle one is the one practices misread: the ORIGINAL must be stored electronically. A paper chart later scanned to satisfy a request is not an original stored in electronic format, so a practice with paper originals owes paper. Conversely a fully electronic practice cannot insist on printing. Readily producible refers to the system's actual capability, so a format the EHR genuinely cannot export is outside the duty — but inconvenience is not incapability.
Applies when
- A requester asks for electronic format, the originals are stored electronically, and the records are readily producible in that format
Limit on copy fees, format or delivery
If a licensed health-care professional determines that a COPY of a radiographic study, including an X ray, mammogram, CT scan, MRI or other film, IS NOT SUFFICIENT for diagnostic or other treatment purposes, the enumerated practitioner SHALL MAKE THE ORIGINAL of any radiographic study AVAILABLE to the patient, the personal representative, a person authorized by the patient, or another health-care professional or facility as specifically directed, pursuant to a HIPAA-compliant authorization and upon payment of the reasonable fees. If a practitioner releases an original radiographic study, THE PRACTITIONER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE for any loss, damage or other consequences as a result of the release. Any original radiographic study made available MUST BE RETURNED UPON REQUEST TO THE LENDING PRACTITIONER WITHIN THIRTY DAYS.
What this means operationally
The trigger is a clinical judgement by a licensed professional that a copy will not do, which means the practice cannot be compelled to surrender originals on request alone. Two protections follow that are worth relying on: releasing the original carries no liability for loss or damage, and the original is RETURNABLE within thirty days of a request to return it. A practice lending films should log the loan and the return date, because the thirty-day clock is the only lever it has to get a diagnostic original back into a record it must still retain.
Applies when
- A licensed health-care professional determines a copy of a radiographic study is insufficient for diagnostic or treatment purposes
Limit on copy fees, format or delivery
The TOTAL SUM of fees that a health-care provider may charge and collect for a record request made by AN ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTS THE PATIENT, or the attorney of the patient's personal representative, pursuant to a HIPAA-compliant authorization, a valid subpoena or a valid court order, IF THE REQUESTED RECORD EXCEEDS SIX HUNDRED SIXTY-FOUR PAGES, MUST NOT EXCEED FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS. That cap DOES NOT APPLY if a health-care provider is REQUIRED TO SEGREGATE, WITHHOLD OR REDACT protected health information from the requested record to comply with applicable law.
This changes on 2028-01-01
The figure in this proposition changes on 1 January 2028 and biennially after. The four-hundred-dollar amount is a floor as well as the current cap, so the rule never moves downward, but any published guidance quoting four hundred dollars will be stale from that date and the operative number will be the one the Secretary of State publishes rather than one stated in statute.
What this means operationally
A hard dollar ceiling, not a per-page rate, and it bites exactly where large-volume litigation requests do. Two boundaries decide whether it applies at all: the requester must be the patient's own attorney rather than any third party, and the record must exceed 664 pages — at or below that threshold the ordinary reasonable-fee rule governs instead. The redaction carve-out is the practical escape and it is narrower than it reads: it applies where segregation or redaction is REQUIRED by law, not where the practice chooses to review the file, so a routine privilege check does not lift the cap.
Applies when
- An attorney representing the patient or the personal representative requests a record exceeding 664 pages under a HIPAA authorization, subpoena or court order
Exceptions
- Does not apply where the provider is required by law to segregate, withhold or redact protected health information from the requested record
- Does not apply to requests at or below 664 pages, which are governed by the reasonable-fee rule
