Tennessee Senate Bill SB1753

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/20/26
• Engrossed: 2/9/26
• Enrolled: 4/1/26
• Passed: 4/14/26
• Chaptered: 4/28/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 63, Chapter 6 and Title 63, Chapter 9, relative to the practice of medicine.

Summary

SB1753 amends Tennessee’s medical practice statutes to expressly recognize several additional practice areas within the definition of medicine-related professional activity, including clinical informatics, lifestyle medicine, and medical virtualist. It also clarifies that a licensed practitioner may, using clinical judgment, determine whether a treatment or procedure is clinically appropriate for a patient’s symptoms and diagnosis. The bill further states that this authority does not create a private right of action and does not apply to nonclinical ministerial or administrative tasks, or to certain decisions made by state employees during contested case proceedings. In addition, it adds language confirming that the chapter does not prohibit the practice of dentistry, nursing, optometry, podiatry, psychology, or other healing arts under Tennessee law, and it makes a parallel clarification for osteopathic medicine.

Impact

The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated Title 63, Chapter 6 and Title 63, Chapter 9, affecting the statutory framework governing the practice of medicine and osteopathic medicine. Its practical effect is to broaden and clarify professional scope-of-practice language, reduce ambiguity around clinical appropriateness determinations, and limit potential litigation by expressly denying a private right of action. It may affect physicians, osteopathic physicians, and other licensed health professionals whose work overlaps with clinical decision-making and related administrative processes.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been broadly supported and moved through the legislature with strong bipartisan approval. It was recommended for passage in committee unanimously and then passed floor votes by large margins, including final concurrence with no dissent. The voting history suggests general agreement with the bill’s clarifying and scope-defining purpose.

Contention

There is little evidence of major controversy in the available record, but the most notable policy issue is the bill’s clarification that clinical appropriateness determinations are part of medical practice while also shielding those decisions from private lawsuits. Another possible point of sensitivity is the explicit preservation of other healing arts and related professions, which may reflect an effort to avoid overlap or conflict among licensed health professions. The absence of committee transcript discussion limits insight into any deeper objections, but the near-unanimous votes indicate no significant recorded opposition.