Tennessee House Bill HB1770

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/20/26
• Refer: 1/22/26
• Refer: 3/11/26
• Refer: 3/17/26
• Chaptered: 4/28/26
• Passed: 4/28/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 63, Chapter 6 and Title 63, Chapter 9, relative to the practice of medicine.

Summary

HB1770 amends Tennessee law governing the practice of medicine and osteopathic medicine. The bill adds new recognized practice areas to the medical licensure statute, including clinical informatics, lifestyle medicine, and medical virtualist, and clarifies that a licensed physician may use clinical judgment to determine whether a treatment or procedure is clinically appropriate for a patient’s symptoms and diagnosis. The bill also states that this clarification does not create a private right of action and does not apply to nonclinical ministerial or administrative tasks, or to certain decisions made by state employees in contested case proceedings. In addition, it adds language confirming that the chapter does not prohibit other healing arts practitioners—such as dentists, nurses, optometrists, podiatrists, and psychologists—from practicing within the scope allowed by Tennessee law. A parallel change is made to the osteopathic medicine statute to include the same clinical-appropriateness language and limitations.

Impact

The bill updates Tennessee Code Annotated Title 63, Chapter 6 and Title 63, Chapter 9 by expanding statutory recognition of certain medical specialties and by defining clinical judgment authority more explicitly for physicians and osteopathic physicians. It affects the regulation of medical practice, licensure interpretation, and scope-of-practice boundaries for health professionals, while preserving existing authority for other licensed healing arts practitioners under state law.

Sentiment

The available legislative history shows strong support and little visible opposition. The House Health Subcommittee and House Health Committee both recommended passage, with unanimous votes in the recorded committee actions. No committee transcript objections are provided, and the bill ultimately passed and was signed into law, suggesting broad agreement on the clarification and modernization of the medical practice statutes.

Contention

The main policy issue appears to be how far the statute should go in defining clinical judgment and whether that language could be used in disputes over treatment decisions. The bill addresses that concern by expressly stating that the new language does not create a private right of action and does not apply to administrative or ministerial tasks, which limits potential litigation. Another possible point of sensitivity is scope-of-practice overlap among health professions, but the bill attempts to reduce conflict by expressly preserving the lawful practice of dentistry, nursing, optometry, podiatry, psychology, and other healing arts.