SB 2699 is a broad health-professions bill with three main components. First, it repeals the sunset on Mississippi’s Patient’s Right to Informed Health Care Choices Act and reenacts that law, which requires health care practitioners to clearly identify their licensure and prohibits deceptive or misleading advertising about professional titles, training, credentials, and scope of practice. The bill also keeps in place the related disciplinary provisions that allow licensing boards to treat violations of the advertising law as unprofessional conduct and grounds for discipline.
Second, the bill creates the Mississippi Genetic Counselor Practice Act. That new chapter places genetic counseling under licensure and regulation by the State Board of Health, defines the scope of practice, sets minimum qualifications, provides for reciprocity and provisional licenses, establishes continuing education requirements, and creates the Mississippi Council of Advisors in Genetic Counseling. It also authorizes the board to investigate complaints, issue subpoenas, seek injunctions against unlicensed practice, and impose misdemeanor penalties for violations.
Third, the bill creates a task force to study alternative funding programs and their effect on patient access to affordable prescription drugs in Mississippi. The task force is assigned to the Mississippi Rare Disease Advisory Council and must report findings and recommendations to legislative and executive leaders by December 1, 2025.
The bill’s impact on state law is to make the informed-health-care-advertising requirements permanent, remove the scheduled repeal of disciplinary cross-references in multiple licensing statutes, and add a new regulatory framework for genetic counselors in Title 73. It affects a wide range of licensed health professions, including chiropractic, dentistry, nursing, optometry, pharmacy, physician assistants, podiatry, and veterinary medicine, by preserving their authority to discipline deceptive advertising violations. It also creates new licensure obligations for genetic counselors and new enforcement authority for the State Board of Health.
The overall sentiment appears strongly favorable and noncontroversial. The bill passed the Senate 51-0, the House 118-0, and the Senate concurred in the House amendment 50-0, indicating unanimous support in both chambers. No committee debate or recorded opposition was provided in the materials.
There is little visible contention in the available record. The main policy issue embedded in the bill is the continued regulation of how health care professionals describe their credentials and titles in advertising and office postings, but the unanimous votes suggest broad agreement on that approach. Any potential concerns would likely relate to the scope of board enforcement authority, the new licensure requirement for genetic counselors, and the bill’s treatment of professional speech and advertising, but no specific objections are reflected in the provided discussion or vote history.
The bill repeals the sunset on the Patient’s Right to Informed Health Care Choices Act, reenacts its core provisions, and removes repeal language from multiple licensing statutes so that deceptive-advertising violations remain disciplinary grounds for covered health professions. It also adds a new Title 73 chapter establishing licensure, regulation, discipline, and criminal penalties for genetic counselors under the State Board of Health, while creating a related advisory council and a study task force on prescription-drug funding programs.
The bill appears to have enjoyed unanimous, bipartisan support throughout the legislative process. The Senate passed it 51-0, the House passed it 118-0 as amended, and the Senate concurred in the House amendment 50-0. No committee testimony or recorded opposition is included, suggesting the measure was viewed as a routine professional-regulation and consumer-protection bill rather than a contested policy change.
No major contention is evident in the available materials. The only potentially sensitive issues are the bill’s continued restrictions on health care advertising and titles, the expansion of disciplinary authority across several licensing boards, and the creation of a new licensure regime for genetic counselors. However, the unanimous votes and lack of transcript debate indicate these issues did not generate visible opposition in the legislative record provided.