Tennessee House Bill HB2259

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26
• Refer: 2/5/26
• Refer: 3/25/26
• Refer: 3/31/26
• Engrossed: 4/6/26
• Enrolled: 4/20/26
• Passed: 5/19/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 68, Chapter 11, relative to quality improvement committees.

Summary

HB2259 amends Tennessee law governing quality improvement committees in healthcare settings. The bill defines “adverse healthcare incident” and “open discussion,” and it creates a statutory framework for voluntary communications between healthcare providers or organizations and patients, family members, or legal representatives after an adverse incident. It is designed to allow providers to discuss what happened, propose resolutions, and communicate with affected parties without those discussions being treated as admissions of liability. The bill also clarifies that disclosures made in good faith during an open discussion do not waive the privilege or confidentiality protections that apply to quality improvement committee materials. It states that QIC findings, determinations, and conclusions generally remain confidential and need not be disclosed in legal, administrative, or other proceedings, except where disclosure is required by state or federal law. Communications made in the open discussion process are protected from discovery, subpoena, and use as evidence, and participants must sign a written acknowledgment before the discussion takes place. For minor patients, guardians must be included, and for incapacitated or deceased patients, the discussion may be held with family members or legal representatives.

Impact

The bill expands and clarifies the confidentiality and privilege protections in Tennessee Code Annotated § 68-11-272 for quality improvement committee activity in healthcare. It affects healthcare providers, healthcare organizations, patients, family members, and legal representatives by establishing a protected process for post-incident communication and by limiting how QIC materials and open-discussion communications can be used in litigation, administrative proceedings, or arbitration. The measure is likely intended to encourage candid internal review and open communication after patient harm while preserving the legal protections surrounding peer review and quality assurance processes.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial in the legislative process. It passed the House Health Subcommittee and House Health Committee unanimously, and it advanced on the House floor with a strong majority vote despite a small number of dissenting votes. The Senate third consideration also passed unanimously, suggesting general agreement that the bill improves clarity and protection for healthcare quality review and disclosure practices.

Contention

The main policy tension in the bill is between encouraging candid, voluntary communication after adverse healthcare incidents and preserving patient access to evidence in legal or administrative proceedings. Supporters appear to favor the bill’s confidentiality protections as a way to promote transparency and resolution discussions without creating liability exposure, while any opposition likely centers on concerns that the privilege could limit discovery or reduce accountability for providers. The requirement for written acknowledgment and the restriction on who may participate in open discussions also reflect an effort to balance those competing interests.