Tennessee House Bill HB1573

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/13/26
• Refer: 1/21/26
• Refer: 2/9/26
• Chaptered: 3/16/26
• Passed: 3/16/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 29 and Title 4, Chapter 3, relative to the department of disability and aging.

Summary

HB1573 makes a narrow administrative update to Tennessee law to recognize the Department of Disability and Aging in the state’s statutory framework. Specifically, it amends Title 4 provisions governing state agencies by removing an outdated reference in one section and adding the Department of Disability and Aging to the list of agencies subject to the state’s general agency statutes. The bill appears to be a conforming measure tied to the creation or reorganization of the Department of Disability and Aging under Title 4, Chapter 3. Rather than changing program eligibility, benefits, or regulatory authority, it updates cross-references so the new department is properly included in the law governing state departments and boards.

Impact

The bill affects Tennessee Code Annotated Title 4 by deleting one obsolete subdivision in Section 4-29-247(a) and adding the Department of Disability and Aging to Section 4-29-249(a). Its practical effect is to align the state’s administrative code with the department’s existence, ensuring the agency is properly listed among state entities subject to general statutory provisions. The measure does not appear to alter substantive rights or services for individuals, but it does formally integrate the department into state law.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests broad, noncontroversial support for the bill. It passed the House Government Operations Committee 14-0 and later passed on the House floor by consent calendar with 93 yeas and no nays. The absence of committee transcript discussion and the unanimous votes indicate the measure was viewed as a routine housekeeping or technical bill rather than a policy dispute.

Contention

No notable substantive contention is evident in the available record. Because the bill is a technical conforming amendment, any discussion likely centered on administrative cleanup and statutory consistency rather than disagreement over policy. The unanimous committee and floor votes suggest there were no significant opponents or contested issues identified in the legislative process.