New York Senate Bill S10455

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

Caption

Expands the definition of professional misconduct to include refusing to provide professional services to a person referred for treatment by a United States Department of Veterans Affairs facility or provider because such person declines elective services during the course of treatment.

Summary

S10455 would amend the New York Education Law definition of professional misconduct to add a new category involving treatment of patients referred by a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs facility or provider. Under the bill, a licensed professional could be found to have engaged in misconduct if they refuse to provide professional services to such a patient solely because the patient declines elective services during the course of treatment, so long as that declination does not make treatment medically unsafe or violate professional standards of care. The measure is narrowly focused on protecting access to care for veterans referred through the VA system. It does not broadly regulate all patient-provider disputes; instead, it targets refusals tied to a patient’s decision to decline elective services, and it preserves the provider’s ability to act when refusal would be medically unsafe or inconsistent with accepted standards of care.

Impact

If enacted, the bill would amend section 6509 of the Education Law, which governs professional misconduct for licensed professionals in New York. The practical effect would be to expose covered professionals to disciplinary consequences if they refuse to treat VA-referred patients for the specified reason, thereby strengthening protections for veterans seeking care and limiting provider discretion in this narrow context. The bill would take effect immediately and would apply within the state’s professional licensing and disciplinary framework.

Sentiment

No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no documented debate or recorded legislative sentiment in the provided materials. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears intended as a patient-access and veterans’ services bill, with a generally protective posture toward VA-referred patients. The absence of votes or hearing comments means there is no evidence here of formal support or opposition from legislators.

Contention

The main potential point of contention is the balance between patient access and professional autonomy. Supporters would likely view the bill as preventing discriminatory or punitive refusals of care against veterans who decline elective services, while opponents might argue it could constrain clinical discretion or create uncertainty about when a refusal is justified. The bill itself addresses that concern by preserving refusals where treatment would be medically unsafe or would violate professional standards of care, but the scope of what counts as an elective service or an impermissible refusal could still be debated.