Rep. Brandi Bradley

The act repeals the health-care delivery system reform incentive payments program in the Colorado healthcare affordability and sustainability enterprise (enterprise) and creates the hospital quality incentive program (incentive program) to use enterprise hospital provider fee revenue to make additional payments to hospitals that meet performance metrics in delivering safer and more effective care that improves patient outcomes and reduces preventable utilization to reduce health-care costs. Prior to implementing the program, the enterprise board shall approve the percentage of hospitals' reimbursement in the incentive program and the incentive program structure, performance measures, and scoring methodology. Once the incentive program is implemented, the total amount of payments made under the incentive program must not exceed 9% of the total reimbursements made to hospitals in the previous state fiscal year.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)

If an audit of a medicaid provider who provides nonemergency medical transportation services or pediatric behavioral therapy is initiated after July 1, 2026, for services provided from January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2023, the act authorizes the department of health care policy and financing (HCPF) to determine and recover overpayments to a provider using statistical sampling and extrapolation. If an audit identifies a statistically significant pattern of alleged overpayments to a provider, the act authorizes the state auditor to use the same statistical sampling and extrapolation methods to audit services provided by the provider from January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2025.     If the audit identifies an alleged overpayment, HCPF is required to issue a notice of the alleged overpayment within 60 days after the alleged overpayment is identified. The notice of alleged overpayment must include the basis of the alleged overpayment, the rationale for the alleged overpayment, the methodology used to calculate the alleged overpayment, and information on how HCPF identified the alleged overpayment.     If HCPF enters into a contract for the purpose of conducting an audit, the contract must not be a contingency-based contract based on a percentage of the amount of recovery collected from the provider.     After HCPF completes an audit of a provider, the state auditor's office is required to conduct an examination to determine that proper statistical sampling and extrapolation methods were used by HCPF when determining whether overpayments were made to a provider. The state auditor shall annually present a report of the findings to the legislative audit committee and the joint budget committee.     The act reduces the general fund appropriation to HCPF for medical and long-term care services for Medicaid-eligible individuals by $6,861,775 and increases the cash fund appropriation to HCPF for medical and long-term care services for Medicaid-eligible individuals by $13,723,550.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)

The act permits an administrative agency that is conducting an adjudicatory hearing (agency) to serve a person entitled to notice of that hearing using electronic means. The agency's use of electronic service requires a documented request by or the documented consent of the person to be notified. The act similarly authorizes electronic service with respect to an agency's final decision or the initial decision by an administrative law judge or hearing officer.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)

The act clarifies an existing requirement for the criminal conviction of a property owner by requiring that one or more criminal charges be brought as a prerequisite to any nuisance abatement or forfeiture proceeding.     Existing law provides an exception to the conviction requirement for noninnocent owners who are not subject to criminal charges that no criminal conviction is necessary of the nonowner criminal defendant if the plaintiff proves its case by clear and convincing evidence that the property subject to the forfeiture proceeding is traceable proceeds of the charged offense or related criminal activity. The act clarifies this exception to first require a conviction of the nonowner criminal defendant before the noninnocent owner's property may be forfeited, while retaining other various exceptions that allow forfeiture actions to proceed against the interest of a claimant.     The act establishes a right for indigent civil asset forfeiture defendants to access forfeiture defense counsel and creates a procedure for the appointment of forfeiture defense counsel in nuisance abatement and forfeiture proceedings. The state court administrator shall enter into a contract for services with a private contractor who regularly provides legal services for indigent clients or litigants to provide a legal defense to a civil asset forfeiture proceeding. The private contractor is subject to certain reporting requirements.     The act creates a forfeiture defense counsel fund (fund) to pay for contracted forfeiture defense counsel who are authorized to represent persons against whom a nuisance abatement or forfeiture proceeding has been filed in connection with criminal charges. The fund is capped at $500,000, and starting in state fiscal year 2027-28, no general fund money is allowed to finance the fund. The balance of the fund over $500,000 is credited to the law enforcement community services grant program fund. The act transfers any unexpended and unencumbered money from the law enforcement community services grant program fund to the forfeiture counsel defense fund.     The act alters the disposition of property and proceeds ordered forfeited in a nuisance abatement or forfeiture action. Currently, forfeited property and proceeds are applied first toward restitution and cost recovery for a list of stakeholders, and of the remainder, 50% is granted to the local governmental body with authority over the seizing agency, 25% is granted to the local behavioral health administrative services organization, and 25% is granted to the law enforcement community services grant program fund. The act amends the disposition of the remainder so that 50% is granted to the local governmental body with authority over the seizing agency, 25% is granted to the fund, and 25% is granted to the local behavioral health administrative services organization.     The act appropriates $556,750 to the judicial department from the fund for civil asset forfeiture defense contracting and $55,000 to the department of local affairs from the fund for civil asset forfeiture portal administration.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)

Maddy summarySB 132, known as the "Magnus Law," requires Colorado law enforcement officers to offer drivers involved in collisions resulting in death or suspected serious injury the opportunity to voluntarily take a breath test for alcohol. The bill mandates officers provide clear, plain-language advisement that the test is voluntary, refusal carries no penalty, and results cannot be used in court. It applies when officers reasonably suspect the driver was at fault and the driver isn't critically injured, creating a standardized protocol to ensure consistent investigation of potential impairment at serious crash scenes. This change aims to preserve evidence that might otherwise be lost, without altering existing legal standards for driving under the influence.

Maddy summaryHR 1007 is a commemorative resolution honoring Colorado's 150th anniversary of statehood in 2026. The bill directly affects the people of Colorado and various government officials by formally recognizing the state's history, culture, and achievements. Its key provisions call on citizens to celebrate this milestone with gratitude and dedication to liberty while committing to preserve natural resources, promote civic education, and strengthen infrastructure. The resolution does not create new laws or funding but serves as a symbolic acknowledgment of the state's legacy and future goals.

Maddy summaryThis bill is a resolution that formally honors Colorado law enforcement officers for their service and sacrifices. It expresses gratitude for their role in protecting communities and encourages residents to engage with police to build trust. The measure does not create new laws or funding but serves as a public acknowledgment of officers' work and challenges.

The act prohibits individuals lawfully permitted to provide psychotherapy services in the state (regulated professionals) from allowing an artificial intelligence system (AI system) to interact with clients in any form of therapeutic communication without synchronous, real-time interaction between the regulated professional, the AI system, and the client, or generate therapeutic recommendations or treatment plans without review and approval by the regulated professional.     Except for educational, administrative, simulation, or training purposes or as part of a research program, a regulated professional shall not use an AI system to provide, direct, or guide psychotherapy, clinical intervention, counseling, diagnosis, treatment planning, or other activity that constitutes the practice of psychotherapy with an individual or group unless the use satisfies the conditions specified in the act. At initial client contact, a regulated professional shall inform clients of the prohibitions regarding use of AI systems in the practice of psychotherapy. Regulated professionals may be disciplined by the appropriate licensing board in the department of regulatory agencies for violations of this act.     The act allows regulated professionals to use an AI system to assist in providing administrative support or supplementary support, as these terms are defined in the act, for psychotherapy services if the regulated professional maintains responsibility for reviewing any outputs of the AI system used to provide administrative support or supplementary support. If a client's therapeutic session will be recorded or transcribed through the use of an AI system, the regulated professional must disclose in advance the use of an AI system and the purposes for its use, and obtain written, informed consent from the client.     The act does not prohibit a regulated professional from using an AI system within accredited or approved educational, instructional, or professional training programs, so long as the AI system is used solely for educational, administrative, simulation, or training purposes and is not deployed, marketed, or represented as a tool for use with clients, patients, or the public. Further, a regulated professional may be involved in the development, testing, or evaluation of an AI system solely for research purposes under the oversight of a federally registered institutional review board, so long as the AI system is not offered to consumers or used outside of the research setting.     The act does not apply to regulated professionals who use or recommend the use of technology in the state that does not diagnose or treat mental health disorders, clearly discloses that the technology is not a substitute for clinical care, and:Provides self-help, therapeutic homework, coaching, patient navigation, guided meditation, journaling, or other tools specified in the act; orIs regulated by the federal food and drug administration.     Except as provided in the act, the act also makes it an unfair or deceptive trade practice under the 'Colorado Consumer Protection Act' for an individual, corporation, or entity (person) to use any term, letter, or phrase in the use of an AI system in a manner that:Indicates or implies that the AI system's outputs are provided by, endorsed by, or equivalent to services provided by a regulated professional;Represents that the AI system provides psychotherapy services; orRepresents that a user's data is confidential in a manner that would lead a reasonable user to believe that the privacy of their data is protected in a manner similar to therapist-client confidentiality.      The act does not impose liability on a regulated professional for defects in or failures of an AI system that are attributable to the developer or deployer of the AI system.     Further, under conditions specified in the act, nothing in the act prohibits a person from developing, testing, or evaluating an AI system solely for research purposes or using an AI system in educational, instructional, or training programs. In addition, it is not an unfair or deceptive trade practice for a person to use a technology that does not diagnose or treat mental health disorders, clearly discloses that the technology is not a substitute for clinical care, and:Provides self-help, therapeutic homework, coaching, patient navigation, guided meditation, journaling, or other tools specified in the act; orIs regulated by the federal food and drug administration.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)

The act creates the 'Colorado Mandatory Lethality Assessment Act', which requires peace officers to conduct a lethality assessment when responding to a domestic violence incident and include the completed lethality assessment in the incident report. A peace officer is not required to administer a lethality assessment if a victim is unavailable, not at the scene, incapacitated, or if circumstances otherwise make the administration of the lethality assessment impossible or impracticable. If the lethality assessment indicates that an individual is a high-risk victim, or if the lethality assessment does not indicate a victim is high-risk but a peace officer determines an individual is a high-risk victim based on the totality of the circumstances, the peace officer is required to immediately contact a community-based victim's advocate either by phone or in person and provide the high-risk victim the opportunity to speak with the advocate.     The act requires the attorney general's office, in consultation with a Colorado-based coalition that advocates for survivors of domestic violence, to develop a mandatory training for peace officers to learn how to administer the lethality assessment and provide victim referrals. No later than June 1, 2027, the attorney general is required to make the training available and offer assistance to law enforcement agencies in providing the training. Beginning July 1, 2027, the act requires each law enforcement agency to ensure that each peace officer employed by the agency has completed the mandatory training; except that a law enforcement agency that has provided training on the administration of lethality assessments prior to July 1, 2027, is not required to provide additional training.     Beginning January 2028, and each January thereafter, the act requires the attorney general's office to report to the general assembly certain information related to lethality assessments conducted in the previous calendar year. No later than January 31, 2030, the domestic violence fatality review board shall evaluate the effectiveness of mandatory lethality assessments and referrals to resources and submit the evaluation to the general assembly.     The act does not impose criminal, administrative, or civil liability on any person for an act or omission made in good faith related to administering a lethality assessment.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)

The act makes various updates to language in the 'Workers' Compensation Act of Colorado' to align with technology changes in the division of workers' compensation in the department of labor and employment. These updates include changing current statutory language requiring mailing of documents to allow for electronic mailing or filing of the documents. The act also changes the fund into which an employer or employer's insurance carrier makes payments to the state for a compensable injury resulting in death of a minor without surviving parents from the subsequent injury fund to the Colorado uninsured employer fund.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)