New York Assembly Bill A00121

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Requires pre-admission notification of policies authorizing the refusal to follow directives in health care proxies that are contrary to a hospital's operating principles.

Summary

This bill amends the Public Health Law to require hospitals to notify patients, health care agents, family members, or surrogates about any hospital policy that allows the hospital to refuse to follow directives in a health care proxy when those directives conflict with the hospital’s operating principles. The notice must be given prior to admission when reasonably possible. In emergency situations, the information may be provided as soon as reasonably possible upon or after admission. If the hospital provides the notice only upon admission or later, the bill requires the hospital to explain why it was not given earlier and to place that explanation in the patient’s medical record. The bill applies to existing provisions governing health care proxies and surrogate decision-making, and it would take effect 60 days after becoming law.

Impact

The bill would amend sections 2984 and 2994-n of the Public Health Law to strengthen disclosure requirements for hospitals that have conscience-based or operating-principles policies affecting compliance with advance directives. It does not change the underlying ability of a hospital to maintain such a policy, but it adds a timing and documentation requirement for informing patients and decision-makers. Hospitals would need to update admission procedures, emergency intake practices, and medical record documentation to ensure compliance.

Sentiment

No committee transcript or recorded vote information is available, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislative debate. Based on the bill text, the measure appears aimed at transparency and patient notice rather than restricting hospital policy choices, which suggests a procedural and consumer-protection framing. The available context does not show any formal controversy or bipartisan divide, though the subject matter could attract interest from both patient-rights advocates and hospitals concerned about operational flexibility.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the balance between patient autonomy and hospital institutional policies. Supporters are likely to favor earlier disclosure so patients and surrogates can make informed choices about where to receive care, especially when advance directives may not be followed. Hospitals and health systems may be concerned about the administrative burden of providing notice before admission, handling emergency admissions, and documenting reasons when notice is delayed. The bill does not eliminate the policy exception itself, so the dispute is over notice and transparency rather than the underlying right to refuse certain directives.