Tennessee House Bill HB0991

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 29; Title 63 and Title 68, relative to the board of medical examiners.

Summary

HB0991 makes a narrow change to Tennessee law governing the Board of Medical Examiners. The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 63-6-102(a)(4), by changing the governor’s role from one that "shall consult" to one that "may consult" in connection with appointments or related actions involving the board. In practical terms, this shifts the consultation requirement from mandatory to discretionary. The bill is limited in scope and does not create a new board, change licensing standards, or alter the board’s regulatory authority over physicians and other medical professionals. Instead, it adjusts the statutory language in Title 63 and is tied to the broader framework of state boards and commissions referenced in Titles 4, 63, and 68. It takes effect immediately upon becoming law.

Impact

The bill would amend the statutory appointment/consultation language for the Board of Medical Examiners, reducing a governor’s legal obligation to consult from mandatory to optional. This affects the process for executive involvement in board-related decisions, but it does not appear to change the board’s composition, duties, or enforcement powers. The practical impact is on state administrative procedure and gubernatorial discretion rather than on medical licensing or public health regulation directly.

Sentiment

Because the bill is very narrow and procedural, the available record shows no committee debate, votes, or recorded opposition. Based on the text alone, the measure appears to be a technical or housekeeping change rather than a controversial policy shift. The absence of transcripts or voting history suggests there is no documented public controversy in the materials provided.

Contention

No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. If there were concerns, they would likely center on the balance of power between the governor and the consultation process for the Board of Medical Examiners, with possible interest from medical professionals, board members, or executive branch officials. However, no speaker or voting record is available here to show active disagreement.