As a mental health care professional that works predominately with teenagers, particularly those within the foster care system and within LGBTQIA+ population I can attest to the disservice of this bill. According to National Prevention of Youth Suicide, suicide is 3-5x more likely in youth in the foster system and up to 7x more likely for LGBTQIA+ youth than their cisgender peers. Often times DSS can take several months to return paperwork in order to enroll or continue in mental health services due to lowered labor in this field. And many adolescents have a difficult time talking to parents about their thoughts of suicide or self- harm. What we also know is that completed suicide can be contagious, especially among our teenage populations. Once a peer completes suicide, it can feel more accessible to others, creating a destructive chain effect in our communities. Therapists often times stand between the threat of suicide or self-harm of our teenage clients and finding relief, helping teens process through their difficult feelings and finding ways to speak to the adults in their lives about these concerns. To take away the anonymity of mental health services within our teen population is putting them at greater risk of the suicide epidemic.

I signed up to comment (if needed). the facilitator of the chat asked me to identify myself but my chat is disabled. My email is jae.benz@dbhds.virginia.gov from DBHDS and my phone number is 804-432-3326 if anyone is able to assist. thank you.

Available to answer technical questions

I support HB 2085. Thank you for caring for Virginians who suffer from this very painful disease. Please support this bill. Thank you for your time and service.

Comments Document

On behalf of the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), I write to respectfully oppose HB 2219. CCIA strongly supports the protection of consumer health data, however, we caution against several provisions included in HB 2219. 1. The Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA) established strong protections for consumers, including rights for health-related data. The law includes strong protections and consumers must provide opt-in consent to the use of their sensitive data, which includes mental and physical health conditions. CCIA recommends pausing any further amendments to the law to allow time to examine its impacts and prevent creating an ever-moving compliance target. 2. The bill proposes duplicating many rights established under the VCDPA, but with slightly different approaches. Several of the bill’s provisions require actions taken for de-identified and aggregate data. However, under the VCDPA, the data is not considered de-identified unless those actions have been taken. This bill does not provide added privacy protections in such cases. Companies already must publish a privacy policy with information on the categories of third parties that may receive personal data – this would include personal data that is health-related. The bill would require entities to create new systems to inform consumers of a “detailed list” of all entities to whom such information may be disclosed and would require significant reengineering of systems. 3. The bill prohibits certain activity outright which could limit consumer ability to access features and services deemed as personally beneficial. Many of the “health care” apps and services this bill regulates have utility because they can show the consumer progress over time. However, the bill would require that providers delete information within 24 hours. Many devices do not process such information on the device itself and must be synced with another device such as a cell phone or computer. This would render useless many apps that consumers have specifically chosen to use. 4. Proposed consent requirements would adversely impact the user’s experience. The bill would require consumer opt-in consent for several actions that would provide little benefit to the user, but would likely create a frustrating, interruptive experience. 5. The private right of action would result in the proliferation of frivolous lawsuits. HB 2219 permits users to bring legal action against companies that have been accused of violating new regulations. By creating a new private right of action, the measure would open the doors of Virginia's courthouses to plaintiffs advancing frivolous claims with little evidence of actual injury. Sincerely, Khara Boender State Policy Director Computer & Communications Industry Association

Comments Document

The Advanced Medical Association (AdvaMed) respectfully raises concerns regarding HB2219. AdvaMed is the largest medical technology association, representing the innovators and manufacturers transforming health care through earlier disease detection, less invasive procedures, and more effective treatments. Recognizing we have not yet directly connected with the author, these comments briefly outline our concerns. We have been engaged with the companion bill’s author in the Senate; though since connecting there we have identified additional concerns. These concerns include: -Reconciling the exemptions with the remainder of the bill; -Ensuring the medical device and research exemptions operate as intended; -Duplicating rights contained in the Virginia Consumer Data Privacy Act; -Reconciling data retention requirements with consumer expectations of app or device performance; and -Restraining access and innovation by creating a private right of action. Thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns on this language. Attached is the letter we sent to Delegate Tran.

Comments Document

Attached are written remarks TechNet submitted to Delegate Tran and committee members.

"To date, only two hospitals in the country received fines for failing to comply with the federal price transparency standards, both of which were in Georgia. Northside Hospital Atlanta was fined $883,180 and Northside Hospital Cherokee was fined $214,320. After being issued fines, both hospitals reformed their price transparency policies and PRA has recognized both as compliant." - 8/18/22 https://www.thecentersquare.com/virginia/hospitals-patient-group-dispute-virginia-price-transparency-compliance/article_2a320b84-1f1f-11ed-8583-df44a918a34b.html