HF305 establishes a statutory right for hospital patients and residents of nonacute care facilities, such as nursing homes and boarding care homes, to have at least one support person physically present while they receive health care services. The bill defines “support person” broadly to include someone providing physical, cognitive, mental health, companionship, spiritual, social, or end-of-life support, and it also covers clergy, lay spiritual support, and even service providers such as a hairdresser or barber when requested by the patient or resident. The measure is titled the “No Patient Left Alone Act.”
The bill requires facilities to adopt written policies and procedures, notify patients, residents, and support persons of their rights, and provide complaint contacts, including the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care. It also requires facilities to make maximum access available, including evening and weekend visits, to accommodate end-of-life situations, to allow virtual visitation when physical access is exhausted, and to permit limited infection-control measures during emergencies. The bill prohibits facilities from requiring patients or residents to waive these rights or to accept conditions such as a health care directive or do-not-resuscitate order as a prerequisite to visitation, and it preserves the rights even during a gubernatorial emergency declaration.
HF305 would also create enforcement mechanisms and liability protections. A facility that knowingly or willfully violates the section would face a civil penalty of $500 per day. At the same time, the bill limits facility liability for allowing access to support persons, for not guaranteeing the support person’s safety or comfort, for not following CDC or other national guidance that would restrict access, and for the acts or omissions of the support person. The bill includes exceptions for operating rooms, isolation settings, emergency care in critical situations, and other restricted areas, and it allows restrictions for safety, infection, court orders, law enforcement requests, abuse concerns, or noncompliance with facility policy.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is strongly supportive of patient and resident visitation rights, especially in compassionate-care, end-of-life, and family-support contexts. Although no committee transcript or vote record is provided, the structure of the bill suggests an intent to prevent facilities from broadly limiting access, particularly during emergencies or pandemics, while still preserving narrow safety and infection-control exceptions. The bill appears designed to respond to concerns that patients and residents can be isolated from loved ones or spiritual support during treatment or long-term care.
The main points of contention likely involve balancing visitation rights against facility safety, infection control, staffing, and operational concerns. Facilities may object to the mandatory access requirement, the daily civil penalty, and the bill’s limits on their ability to restrict support persons during emergencies or public health events. Supporters would likely emphasize dignity, family presence, and compassionate care, while opponents may focus on risks to other patients, staff, and the facility’s ability to manage clinical and behavioral situations.
HF305 would add a new section to Minnesota Statutes chapter 144 creating an enforceable right for patients and residents to have a support person present during health care services in hospitals and nonacute care facilities. It would impose new notice, policy, complaint-handling, and access requirements on covered facilities, while also creating a civil penalty for violations and specifying exceptions and liability protections. The bill would affect hospitals, nursing homes, boarding care homes, patients, residents, support persons, and facility administrators, and it would limit the ability of facilities and government entities to suspend these rights during emergencies.
The bill’s sentiment is generally favorable toward expanded visitation and compassionate-care access, with an emphasis on keeping patients and residents from being isolated from family, clergy, and other chosen supporters. No votes or hearing transcripts are provided, so there is no recorded committee debate to measure directly, but the bill’s language suggests a policy goal that is likely to draw support from patient-rights and family-advocacy perspectives. At the same time, the bill’s exceptions and infection-control provisions indicate awareness of concerns from health care facilities about safety and operational flexibility.
The likely contention centers on whether the bill goes too far in overriding facility discretion during emergencies, pandemics, and other high-risk situations. Health care providers and long-term care facilities may object to the mandatory access rule, the limit on waiving rights, the requirement to accept certain legal designations for support persons, and the $500-per-day civil penalty. Supporters are likely to argue that these provisions are necessary to prevent unnecessary isolation and to protect dignity, end-of-life care, and family involvement, while opponents may emphasize infection control, patient safety, staff safety, and the need for facilities to manage access based on clinical judgment.