AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 33; Title 63 and Title 68, relative to health facility regulation.
Summary
HB2110 amends Tennessee’s health facility licensing laws to create an explicit exemption from licensure for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) services when those services are not used for diagnostic purposes. The bill also revises existing statutory language so that MRI and PET remain subject to licensure when they are used diagnostically, while carving out the non-diagnostic uses from the licensing requirement.
In practical terms, the bill narrows the scope of state health facility regulation under Tennessee Code Annotated Title 68 by distinguishing between diagnostic and non-diagnostic MRI and PET operations. It takes effect July 1, 2026, and would affect facilities, providers, and operators that offer these imaging technologies, potentially reducing regulatory burdens for certain non-diagnostic uses while preserving oversight for diagnostic imaging services.
Impact
The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated Section 68-11-204, which governs facilities exempt from licensure under the health facility regulatory framework. By adding a new exemption for non-diagnostic MRI and PET and modifying the existing MRI/PET provisions, it changes which imaging operations must obtain a health facility license. The main impact is on imaging providers and other entities using these technologies for research, industrial, educational, or other non-diagnostic purposes, who would no longer need licensure under this part, while diagnostic imaging remains regulated.
Sentiment
The available voting history shows strong and unanimous support at each committee stage, with no recorded dissenting votes. The bill was recommended for passage in the House Health Subcommittee, House Health Committee, House Finance, Ways, and Means Subcommittee, and House Finance, Ways, and Means Committee, suggesting broad agreement that the change is a targeted regulatory adjustment rather than a controversial policy shift.
Contention
No committee transcript is available, and the recorded votes show no opposition, so there is no documented substantive contention in the provided materials. The only likely policy distinction embedded in the bill is the line between diagnostic and non-diagnostic MRI/PET use, which could matter to regulators and facility operators, but the legislative record provided does not show any dispute over how that line should be drawn or whether the exemption should be broader or narrower.