Tennessee Senate Bill SB0692

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/3/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 9; Title 14; Title 28; Title 29; Title 33; Title 34; Title 36; Title 37; Title 39; Title 40; Title 49; Title 50; Title 56; Title 63; Title 68 and Title 71, relative to medical practices.

Summary

SB0692 amends Tennessee law governing medical practices by adding a new annual reporting requirement for the attorney general and reporter. By March 1 of each year, the attorney general must submit a report to the speakers of the Senate and House detailing: the number of violations of the relevant chapter reported to the office, the number of enforcement actions brought against healthcare providers or other persons who knowingly violate the chapter, and the amount of civil penalties recovered. The bill does not create a new licensing scheme or substantive medical practice rule; instead, it increases legislative oversight and transparency around enforcement of existing law. It focuses on tracking complaints, prosecutions or civil actions, and penalty collections related to violations involving healthcare providers and others subject to the chapter.

Impact

The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated § 68-33-106 by adding a reporting subsection that requires the attorney general and reporter to provide annual enforcement statistics to legislative leadership. Its practical effect is to impose an administrative reporting duty on the attorney general’s office and to create a recurring record of enforcement activity, civil actions, and penalty recoveries under the medical-practices chapter. Healthcare providers and other covered persons are not directly regulated by new conduct standards in this bill, but they are the subjects of the reported enforcement data.

Sentiment

Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the available context does not show any explicit debate, support, or opposition. Based on the text alone, the bill appears procedural and oversight-oriented rather than controversial, suggesting a generally neutral or administrative posture. The measure’s focus on transparency and reporting may be viewed favorably by lawmakers seeking accountability in enforcement.

Contention

No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. If any concerns were raised, they would likely center on the administrative burden placed on the attorney general’s office, the scope of the reporting requirement, or how the data might be used to scrutinize enforcement against healthcare providers. However, the record provided does not identify any opposing members, stakeholder groups, or substantive disagreements.