Default surrogate for health decisions creation and process to appoint default surrogate for health decisions provision
SF 2567 creates a new statutory framework in Minnesota law for identifying and using a “default surrogate for health decisions” when an adult patient is an “unrepresented individual” and lacks decision-making capacity. The bill defines who may serve in that role, including people in the patient’s kinship system, friends, certain previously designated agents, other authorized representatives, and supportive professionals or organizations. It also defines related terms such as “friends,” “health care agent organization,” and “kinship system,” and it expands the health care directive chapter to recognize organizations as health care agents in some circumstances.
The bill also sets out the conditions a physician, advanced practice registered nurse, or physician assistant must satisfy before relying on a default surrogate. Those conditions include determining that the patient is unrepresented, lacks capacity for the decision, and that the proposed surrogate is willing, available, familiar with the patient’s values, acting in good faith, and otherwise acceptable. The provider must document the process and rationale for recognizing the surrogate. The bill further adds immunity provisions for health care providers and surrogates acting in good faith, and it clarifies that recognized default surrogates have legal authorization to access relevant patient records for the decision at issue.
The bill would amend Minnesota Statutes chapter 145C, which governs health care directives, by adding a formal default-surrogate process for unrepresented adults and by revising definitions and immunity provisions. It would also create new section 145C.18 to establish the criteria and documentation requirements for recognizing a default surrogate, and it would broaden the law to permit health care agent organizations and certain other representatives to participate in decision-making under specified conditions. In practice, the bill would affect hospitals, clinicians, long-term care settings, patients without advance directives, and people or organizations who may be asked to make decisions on their behalf.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the overall posture appears procedural and policy-oriented rather than overtly contentious. The bill is framed as a clarification and expansion of decision-making authority for vulnerable adults who lack representation, suggesting a generally supportive intent to reduce uncertainty for providers and families. Because there are no transcripts or vote records provided, there is no documented public sentiment in the materials beyond the bill’s apparent effort to create a structured, protective process.
The main policy tension in the bill is between expanding who may act as a surrogate and ensuring that only appropriate, trustworthy people are recognized. The bill addresses this by requiring good-faith concern, familiarity with the patient’s values, reasonable availability, and documentation by the clinician, but those standards could still raise questions about how much discretion providers have and how to verify a surrogate’s suitability. Another possible point of contention is the inclusion of organizations, clergy, advocates, and other nontraditional supporters in the surrogate framework, which may prompt debate over patient autonomy, family priority, and the risk of overbroad decision-making authority. No specific objections or supporters are identified in the available record.