HF345, titled the “No Patient Left Alone Act,” would create a new section in Minnesota Statutes chapter 144 establishing a patient’s or resident’s right to have at least one support person physically present while receiving care or services from a licensed provider. The bill defines “support person” broadly to include someone providing compassionate care, a clergy member or lay spiritual supporter, a person needed to meet physical or mental needs, or even a service provider such as a hairdresser or barber. It applies to patients, residents, minors, and people in end-of-life situations, and requires providers to adopt written policies, notify patients of the right, and maintain complaint procedures.
The bill also sets detailed rules for access. It requires providers to allow maximum access, including evening and weekend visitation where possible, and to make special accommodations for minors, end-of-life situations, and parents or guardians receiving care. If physical presence is not feasible, a virtual option must be offered unless an exemption applies. The bill prohibits providers from conditioning visitation on advance directives, do-not-resuscitate orders, or invasive medical interventions such as vaccination of the support person. It also states that the right cannot be suspended during emergencies declared by the governor or legislature.
HF345 would significantly affect hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, residential care homes, and other licensed health care providers by imposing a statewide visitation right and related policy obligations. It creates a civil penalty of $500 per day for knowing or willful violations and limits provider liability for allowing access, not protecting support persons, not following CDC or other national guidance that restricts access, or for the conduct of support persons once admitted. The bill also includes exemptions for operating rooms, isolation areas, behavioral health settings, emergency critical situations, and other restricted areas, and allows restrictions for safety, infection, court orders, law enforcement requests, disruptive behavior, or patient request.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly pro-access and pro-family, emphasizing compassionate care, religious support, and patient autonomy. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available materials. However, the structure of the bill suggests an intent to prevent facilities from broadly restricting visitation, especially during emergencies or public health events.
The main points of potential contention are the breadth of the visitation right, the limits on provider discretion, and the prohibition on requiring medical interventions or compliance with certain public health guidance as a condition of access. Health care providers may view the mandate as burdensome or difficult to reconcile with infection control, staffing, safety, and facility policy concerns, while supporters are likely to argue that the bill protects vulnerable patients and residents from isolation and preserves family, spiritual, and caregiving support.
The bill would add a new statutory right in Minnesota law for patients and residents to have at least one support person present during care, and it would impose corresponding duties on licensed health care facilities, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, residential care homes, and similar providers. It would require written visitation policies, notice of rights, complaint procedures, and compliance with access rules, while also creating a civil penalty for violations and limiting provider liability in specified circumstances. The measure would also constrain the ability of providers and government entities to suspend these rights during declared emergencies, subject to the bill’s listed exemptions and restrictions.
The bill appears to be framed in a strongly supportive, patient-centered way, with an emphasis on compassion, family presence, spiritual care, and preventing isolation. No committee testimony or vote record is provided, so there is no documented public debate in the supplied materials. Based on the text alone, the bill’s sponsors seem to favor broad access rights, while the likely opposition would come from health care providers and others concerned about safety, infection control, and operational burdens.
The most notable contention points are the bill’s broad mandate that providers allow support-person access, its restriction on using emergency declarations to suspend that access, and its prohibition on requiring vaccination or other invasive interventions as a condition of visitation. Providers may object to the limits on their discretion to manage infection control, behavioral health settings, emergency care, and facility safety, while supporters are likely to argue that the bill is necessary to protect patients, residents, and families from unnecessary isolation. The exemption language and the ability to restrict access for safety, infection, or disruptive behavior appear designed to address some of those concerns, but the overall balance still favors access over provider control.