AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 34; Title 42; Title 56; Title 63; Title 68; Title 71 and Chapter 985 of the Public Acts of 2024, relative to certificates of need.
HB0970 revises Tennessee’s certificate-of-need (CON) laws, renaming Part 16 of Title 68 as the “Tennessee Healthcare Quality and Access Act of 2025” and substantially narrowing the scope of facilities and activities subject to CON review. The bill redefines “healthcare institution” for this part to mean only a nursing home, while also making related conforming changes across multiple titles so that other health-care definitions refer to “facility” rather than the broader CON-based term. It also repeals or modifies portions of Chapter 985 of the Public Acts of 2024, indicating that the bill is intended to replace or roll back parts of prior CON legislation.
The bill keeps CON requirements for certain nursing home construction, bed increases, bed relocations, and service changes, but adds detailed procedural rules for filings, public notice, simultaneous review, independent verification of application data, and limits on communications with commission members after a letter of intent is filed. It also creates exemptions and special rules, including a limited no-CON bed increase for nursing homes, an exemption for certain economically distressed counties with no hospital, and a carve-out for Tennessee state veterans’ homes. In addition, it sets time limits for completing approved CON projects and restricts continuing oversight after June 30, 2025 to certificates issued for entities still meeting the bill’s narrower definition of healthcare institution.
The bill’s impact on state law is significant because it would sharply reduce the reach of Tennessee’s CON regime and alter how the Health Facilities Commission reviews, approves, and oversees health-care projects. It changes statutory definitions in multiple titles, voids licenses and requires repayment of public funds if a license is issued for a project that should have had a CON but did not, and authorizes civil penalties and injunctive relief for violations. It also creates a separate process for reopening or renewing hospital licenses at previously licensed sites in certain counties, which could affect hospital access in rural or smaller-population areas.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a deregulatory approach to health facility expansion, while still preserving targeted oversight for nursing homes and certain relocation or bed-change scenarios. Because the bill contains both CON rollbacks and procedural tightening, it likely appeals to supporters of expanded health-care access and provider flexibility, while potentially drawing concern from those who favor stronger planning controls and community review.
The main points of contention are likely to be the narrowing of CON coverage, the exemptions for certain counties and veterans’ homes, and the new limits on commission oversight and communications. Opponents may argue that reducing CON requirements could increase market competition but also weaken safeguards against overbuilding, cost growth, or uneven access, while supporters may argue that the bill removes barriers to needed facilities and services, especially in underserved or distressed areas. The bill’s detailed filing and review rules also suggest concern about transparency, data accuracy, and fairness in contested applications.
HB0970 would substantially amend Tennessee’s certificate-of-need statutes by narrowing the definition of “healthcare institution” for Part 16 to nursing homes, revising procedures for CON applications and commission review, and adding exemptions and special rules for certain nursing home bed increases, veterans’ homes, distressed counties, and hospital renewals. It also makes conforming changes across multiple code titles to align related definitions with the broader “facility” terminology and limits continuing CON oversight after June 30, 2025 to entities that still fit the revised definition. The bill would therefore reduce the number of health-care projects subject to CON review while preserving regulation for specific nursing home-related actions and certain hospital-related circumstances.
The overall sentiment suggested by the bill text is mixed but generally pro-reform and pro-access, with an emphasis on reducing regulatory barriers and clarifying the CON process. Because no committee discussion or vote history was provided, there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize from debate or roll call. The structure of the bill suggests support for expanding provider flexibility and access in underserved areas, while still retaining oversight mechanisms for nursing homes and contested applications.
Likely points of contention include whether narrowing CON coverage will improve access and competition or instead weaken planning controls and community input, especially for hospitals and other health-care facilities. The exemptions for economically distressed counties, the special treatment of Tennessee state veterans’ homes, and the limited no-CON nursing home bed increase are also likely to be debated because they create uneven treatment across providers and regions. In addition, the bill’s restrictions on communications with commission members, its independent verification requirements, and its voiding of incomplete applications may be viewed either as transparency safeguards or as added procedural burdens depending on the stakeholder.