SB1972 would amend the Illinois Medical Patient Rights Act and the Veterinary Medicine and Surgery Practice Act of 2004 to prohibit health care providers and veterinary medicine practitioners from charging patients or clients a fee for a missed or late appointment. The bill defines “health care provider” broadly to include a wide range of licensed professionals, such as physicians, nurses, dentists, pharmacists, therapists, psychologists, social workers, speech-language pathologists, audiologists, and hearing instrument dispensers. It also applies to persons engaged in veterinary medicine.
The bill allows providers to create incentive programs that encourage patients or clients to keep scheduled appointments, so long as those programs do not impose missed-appointment penalties. It also states that any provider who violates the prohibition would be guilty of a petty offense and fined $500 per violation. The veterinary section mirrors the medical section by barring late or missed appointment fees for veterinary clients, subject to any requirements otherwise imposed by law.
Impact
If enacted, SB1972 would add new provisions to two Illinois statutes and effectively ban no-show and late-cancellation fees in both medical and veterinary settings. It would limit a common billing practice used by clinics and animal hospitals to offset lost appointment time, while preserving the ability to use positive incentives for appointment adherence. The bill would create a new enforcement mechanism through petty-offense liability and a $500 fine for each violation, affecting licensed health care professionals and veterinary practitioners statewide.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears consumer-protective and aimed at reducing financial penalties for patients and pet owners who miss appointments. The absence of recorded discussion makes the overall sentiment difficult to gauge beyond the bill’s straightforward, reform-oriented purpose.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be whether banning missed-appointment fees unfairly shifts the cost of no-shows onto providers, clinics, and veterinary practices, which often rely on those fees to manage scheduling and lost revenue. Supporters would likely emphasize affordability, fairness, and access to care for patients and pet owners, while opponents may argue that the bill removes a tool used to discourage missed appointments and maintain office efficiency. The bill’s broad definition of covered health care providers could also be a point of concern for professional groups affected by the restriction.