Tennessee House Bill HB2503

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/3/26
• Refer: 3/4/26
• Refer: 3/25/26
• Refer: 3/31/26
• Refer: 4/6/26
• Engrossed: 4/15/26
• Enrolled: 4/27/26
• Passed: 5/21/26
• Chaptered: 5/27/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 3; Title 4; Title 5; Title 6; Title 7; Title 8; Title 10; Title 12; Title 29; Title 35; Title 36; Title 37; Title 39; Title 40; Title 41; Title 42; Title 45; Title 47; Title 49; Title 50; Title 52; Title 53; Title 56; Title 58; Title 63; Title 67; Title 68 and Title 71, relative to health insurance.

Summary

HB2503 is a narrow health insurance bill that makes a single statutory timing change. It amends Tennessee Code Annotated section 56-7-1013(f)(1) by shortening a deadline from ten business days to nine business days. The bill’s caption indicates it is part of a broader set of code amendments related to health insurance, but the operative text only changes this one time period. Because the bill is so limited in scope, it does not appear to create a new program or substantially rewrite insurance law. Instead, it adjusts an existing procedural deadline in the insurance code, which could affect how quickly an insurer, regulated entity, or other covered party must act under the referenced section. The act takes effect immediately upon becoming law, reflecting a stated public welfare need for prompt implementation.

Impact

The bill amends Tennessee’s insurance statutes by reducing a statutory compliance or response period in Title 56 from ten business days to nine business days. This change directly affects the parties governed by section 56-7-1013(f)(1), likely insurers and any regulated participants subject to that provision, by requiring action one business day sooner than under current law. No other substantive statutory changes are made in the bill text provided.

Sentiment

The recorded votes suggest broad support for the bill at the committee and floor levels, with unanimous or near-unanimous committee recommendations and strong passage on the floor. The bill advanced through the process without evidence of organized opposition in the available committee materials. Overall, the sentiment appears favorable and procedural rather than controversial, consistent with a technical insurance-code amendment.

Contention

The main point of contention appears to have been the floor amendment process rather than the underlying policy change. One amendment motion was rejected by a wide margin, indicating disagreement over proposed changes to the bill’s language or scope, even though the underlying bill itself continued to advance. Beyond that, the available record does not show substantive debate over the nine-day deadline change, suggesting the bill was viewed as a technical adjustment with limited controversy.