Tennessee House Bill HB2310

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 63 and Title 68, Chapter 33, relative to prohibited medical procedures.

Summary

HB2310 amends Tennessee law governing prohibited medical procedures by adding a reporting requirement for disciplinary actions taken under Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 68-33-107. Under the bill, each appropriate regulatory authority operating under Title 63 or Title 68 must report quarterly to the Department of Health the number and type of disciplinary actions taken pursuant to that section. The bill does not create a new prohibition or change the underlying medical-procedure restrictions themselves; instead, it adds an administrative oversight mechanism intended to improve tracking and transparency. It applies to the relevant licensing and regulatory authorities responsible for enforcing the existing law and requires them to provide regular data to the Department of Health.

Impact

HB2310 affects Tennessee Code Annotated Title 63 and Title 68, Chapter 33 by requiring quarterly reporting of disciplinary actions related to prohibited medical procedures. The practical impact is on state regulatory boards and the Department of Health, which would receive and compile enforcement data. It does not appear to alter private rights directly, but it increases administrative duties for regulators and may improve state-level monitoring of enforcement under Section 68-33-107.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to be a straightforward administrative measure rather than a controversial policy change. The language suggests a neutral, compliance-oriented approach focused on reporting and oversight. No recorded opposition or support is available in the provided context, so the overall sentiment cannot be assessed beyond the bill’s procedural nature.

Contention

No specific points of contention are documented in the provided transcripts or voting history. Potential areas of concern, if raised, would likely involve the added reporting burden on licensing boards and whether the quarterly data collection meaningfully improves enforcement or transparency. However, the available record does not identify any legislators, agencies, or stakeholder groups taking a formal position for or against the bill.