Tennessee House Bill HB2093

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26
• Refer: 2/5/26
• Refer: 3/25/26
• Refer: 3/31/26
• Refer: 4/6/26
• Engrossed: 4/16/26
• Enrolled: 4/23/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 56; Title 68, Chapter 11 and Title 71, Chapter 5, relative to managed care organizations.

Summary

HB2093 amends Tennessee law governing TennCare managed care organizations (MCOs) and their contracts with qualified nursing facilities that provide Medicaid nursing facility services. The bill defines key terms such as “bureau,” “managed care organization,” “qualified nursing facility,” and “termination,” and then prohibits MCO contracts from including provisions that allow termination of a qualified nursing facility without cause, for convenience, or without stating the grounds for termination. The bill also requires the Bureau of TennCare, working with the Department of Commerce and Insurance, to review and approve standard MCO contract templates used for facility contracting to ensure they comply with the new restrictions. The act applies prospectively to policies, plans, and contracts entered into, renewed, amended, or delivered on or after July 1, 2026, and includes a severability clause.

Impact

This bill adds a new statutory restriction in Tennessee Code Annotated § 71-5-1412 limiting how TennCare MCOs may terminate contracts with qualified nursing facilities. It affects Medicaid nursing facility providers, MCOs, the Bureau of TennCare, and the Department of Commerce and Insurance by requiring contract language to specify grounds for termination and by subjecting standard contract templates to state review and approval. The practical effect is to provide greater contractual stability and oversight for nursing facilities participating in TennCare.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have broad support and little visible opposition. It advanced unanimously through the House Health Subcommittee, House Health Committee, and House Government Operations Committee, and then passed the House on third consideration and on the floor with 91 yeas and 0 nays. The voting history suggests a generally favorable view of the measure among legislators.

Contention

No recorded committee debate or dissent is provided, and the votes were unanimous at every stage, so there is no clear evidence of substantive opposition in the available materials. Any potential point of contention would likely center on the bill’s limits on MCO contracting flexibility and the added state oversight of contract templates, but those concerns are not reflected in the vote record or transcripts provided.