Tennessee House Bill HB1119

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 9; Title 14; Title 28; Title 29; Title 33; Title 34; Title 36; Title 37; Title 39; Title 40; Title 49; Title 50; Title 56; Title 63; Title 68 and Title 71, relative to medical practices.

Summary

HB1119 amends Tennessee law governing medical practices by adding an annual reporting requirement for the attorney general and reporter. By March 1 of each year, the attorney general must report to the speakers of the Senate and House on three items: the number of violations of the chapter reported, the number of actions brought against healthcare providers or other persons who knowingly violate the chapter, and the amount of civil penalties recovered for those violations. The bill does not create new substantive medical practice rules or penalties; instead, it increases legislative oversight and transparency regarding enforcement of existing law. It applies to the chapter codified at Tennessee Code Annotated section 68-33-106 and takes effect immediately upon becoming law.

Impact

The bill adds a new reporting duty to Tennessee Code Annotated section 68-33-106, requiring the attorney general and reporter to provide annual enforcement data to legislative leaders. This affects the administration of the medical-practice chapter by formalizing disclosure of complaints, enforcement actions, and civil penalty collections, but it does not directly change licensing standards, provider obligations, or penalty amounts.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears procedural and oversight-oriented rather than controversial. Its purpose is to improve accountability and visibility into enforcement of medical-practice laws, which generally suggests a neutral to favorable reception. No opposition or support statements are available in the provided record.

Contention

No specific points of contention are documented in the provided transcripts or voting history. If any concerns were raised, they are not reflected in the materials supplied here. The only likely area for debate would be whether the reporting requirement adds administrative burden to the attorney general’s office or whether it is a useful transparency measure for lawmakers overseeing healthcare enforcement.