AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 63 and Title 68, relative to anesthesiology.
SB0461 creates a new licensing and regulatory framework in Tennessee for anesthesiologist assistants. It adds a new chapter to Title 63 defining anesthesiologist assistants, anesthesiologists, supervision, and related terms, and gives the Board of Medical Examiners authority to license, renew, discipline, and set fees and continuing education requirements for these practitioners. The bill also establishes temporary licensure for qualified graduates who have not yet passed the certification exam, and makes unauthorized practice or misuse of the title a Class B misdemeanor.
The bill specifies the education, examination, and application requirements for licensure, sets a two-year renewal cycle, and authorizes the board to revoke, suspend, restrict, or reinstate licenses under defined conditions. It also lays out a detailed scope of practice for anesthesiologist assistants under the supervision of an anesthesiologist, including many perioperative and anesthesia-related tasks such as airway management, line placement, administering drugs, monitoring patients, and assisting in resuscitation. In addition, it amends the composition of the Board of Medical Examiners to add one licensed anesthesiologist assistant as a nonphysician member.
The bill’s impact on state law is to formally recognize anesthesiologist assistants as a licensed health profession in Tennessee and to create statutory authority for their regulation by the state medical board and Department of Health. It also imposes criminal penalties for unlicensed practice and for employing unlicensed anesthesiologist assistants, while limiting practice to supervision by an anesthesiologist. A notable restriction in the bill is that it prohibits practice as an anesthesiologist assistant in counties with populations of 85,000 or less, which narrows where the profession may be used.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the available context does not show direct debate or formal support/opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be a professional licensure and scope-of-practice bill with a strong regulatory focus rather than a broad policy dispute. The main likely points of contention are the extent of delegated authority, the supervision requirements, the criminal penalties for noncompliance, and the county-population restriction, which could limit access to the profession in smaller communities.
SB0461 would add a new chapter to Title 63 governing anesthesiologist assistants, authorize the Board of Medical Examiners and Department of Health to regulate the profession, and amend the board membership statute in Title 63 to include one anesthesiologist assistant representative. It creates licensure, renewal, temporary licensure, discipline, and reinstatement provisions, and makes unlicensed practice and unlawful employment of unlicensed assistants criminal offenses. The bill also limits practice geographically by prohibiting anesthesiologist assistant practice in counties with populations of 85,000 or less.
No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment in the supplied materials. From the text, the bill appears generally supportive of expanding and formalizing the anesthesiology workforce through licensure and board oversight, while also imposing significant regulatory controls. The structure suggests a policy consensus-oriented professional regulation bill, though the county restriction and supervision requirements could draw concern from stakeholders affected by access or workforce limitations.
The most notable potential points of contention are the bill’s detailed supervision requirements, the broad but bounded scope of delegated clinical tasks, and the criminal penalties for unauthorized practice or employment of unlicensed assistants. The prohibition on anesthesiologist assistant practice in counties with populations of 85,000 or less may be especially controversial because it limits deployment in rural or smaller communities. Health care employers, anesthesiologists, and anesthesiologist assistants may support the licensure framework, while opponents or skeptics may focus on patient safety, scope-of-practice expansion, and access implications in smaller counties.