Provide requirements for intimate examinations of certain body parts
Summary
LB110 creates a new set of rules for “intimate examinations” performed by licensed health care providers in Nebraska. The bill defines intimate examination to mean the manual examination of a patient’s breast or an internal pelvic, prostate, or rectal examination, and specifically excludes visual inspection of those body parts. It also includes legislative findings emphasizing informed consent, patient autonomy, and the need for similar protections for sensitive body areas in medical practice.
Under the bill, a provider licensed under the Uniform Credentialing Act may not perform an intimate examination on an anesthetized or unconscious patient in a health care facility without prior written consent, unless one of three exceptions applies: a person authorized to make health care decisions for the patient has given written consent, the examination is necessary for emergency diagnostic or treatment purposes, or a court orders the examination for evidence collection. If such an examination is performed on an unconscious or anesthetized patient under the emergency or consent exceptions, the patient must be notified in writing before discharge. A provider who violates the rule is subject to discipline under the Uniform Credentialing Act.
Impact
LB110 amends Nebraska public health and professional licensing law by imposing consent requirements on certain invasive examinations performed while a patient is anesthetized or unconscious. It affects licensed health care providers in facilities covered by the bill and creates a new patient-notification requirement, while tying enforcement to existing disciplinary authority under the Uniform Credentialing Act. The bill does not create a criminal penalty; instead, it relies on professional discipline for violations.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial in the Legislature. The recorded votes were overwhelmingly unanimous at each stage, including final passage by a 48-0-1 vote, and the bill was approved by the Governor. The vote pattern suggests strong bipartisan agreement around the patient-consent protections and the underlying informed-consent principles.
Contention
No major opposition is reflected in the available voting history or transcripts, and no committee discussion snippets were provided. The main policy issue embedded in the bill is the balance between patient autonomy and limited exceptions for emergency care, surrogate consent, and court-ordered evidence collection. Any potential concern would likely center on how the consent rule applies in urgent clinical settings or in training environments, but the legislative record provided shows no visible dispute.