Dear [Your Elected Official],

<p>I urge you to vote NO on SB676 if it comes to the Senate floor because of its data privacy and fiscal implications.</p> <p><strong>Data privacy</strong>:  Under the appearance of helping people de-transition, this bill is actually a massive data grab about which the House Finance Subcommittee heard testimony. It requires that providers submit to the state a huge amount of information on patients, procedures, and the providers themselves.  This bill then directs that much of it be reported publicly. </p> <p>This bill endangers the data privacy of patients.  Even though providers do not submit patient names, they submit so much specific information that others might use it to determine who they are, particularly in rural areas. This data gathering and reporting puts a target on providers that could endanger their lives or those who share facilities with them because of how much vitriol has been generated about the issue. <em><strong>This data gathering crosses a line that should make all of us wonder whose health data will be collected and reported next</strong></em>.</p> <p>Could the data collection process be so onerous and intrusive that it causes providers not to offer detransition or transition health care, which defeats the purpose of the bill?</p> <p><strong>Fiscal implications</strong>: The most recent House amendment directs the state to apply for a federal waiver so that de-transition care is considered an essential health benefit. That returns the bill to much of its original position in terms of cost. So the original fiscal note of over $200,000 should apply again because of this sloppy work done on the bill in the House.  <em><strong>The bill's fiscal note should be corrected and the bill should go behind the budget.</strong> </em>Please, reread the original 2025 fiscal note on the bill and compare it to the most recent House amendment. </p> <p>Thank you for considering my views.</p>