Tennessee Senate Bill SB2413

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 68, Chapter 11, relative to quality improvement committees.

Summary

SB2413 amends Tennessee law governing quality improvement committees (QICs) in healthcare settings. The bill adds definitions for “adverse healthcare incident” and “open discussion,” and it creates a framework for confidential, voluntary communications between healthcare providers or organizations and patients, families, or legal representatives after an adverse incident. It also clarifies that good-faith disclosures to patients or families do not waive QIC privilege, and that providers are not required to disclose QIC findings, determinations, or conclusions in legal, administrative, or other proceedings unless federal law requires it. The bill further protects open discussions from being used as evidence or discovery in court, administrative, or arbitration proceedings, while encouraging settlement offers and corrective actions without implying fault or liability. It requires participants to be advised of the right to legal counsel and to be told that participation does not extend the statute of limitations unless agreed to in writing. It also sets out detailed written-waiver requirements for any party that wants to waive confidentiality over open-discussion materials, including scope, purpose, duration, and revocation procedures.

Impact

If enacted, SB2413 would strengthen confidentiality and privilege protections for QIC-related materials and communications under Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 68, Chapter 11. It would shield certain post-incident communications from discovery and evidentiary use, limit compelled disclosure of QIC outcomes, and create a formal process for voluntary open discussions and written waivers. The practical effect would be to alter how healthcare providers, hospitals, and patients handle adverse healthcare incidents by encouraging candid resolution discussions while preserving legal protections around quality-improvement review.

Sentiment

The available voting record suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill, as the Senate Health and Welfare Committee recommended passage with amendments by an 8-1 vote. The bill’s structure also indicates a policy preference for encouraging communication, transparency, and early resolution after adverse healthcare incidents, while maintaining confidentiality protections for quality-improvement work. No committee transcript is available here, so the record reflects support in committee but does not provide detailed debate or public testimony.

Contention

The main points of contention likely center on the balance between patient transparency and legal privilege. Supporters would view the bill as promoting open, good-faith communication and corrective action without automatically creating liability exposure, while critics may worry that the expanded confidentiality protections could limit patients’ access to information needed for litigation or accountability. The requirement that participants be warned about counsel and statutes of limitation, along with the strong discovery protections and waiver rules, suggests concern about preserving legal rights even as the bill encourages informal resolution.