WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 2259

Health Care - As introduced, specifies that a good faith disclosure of information related to an activity of a quality improvement committee (QIC) made by a healthcare provider or healthcare organization to a patient or a family member of a patient is not a waiver of the privilege and confidentiality protections provider under current law and makes other related changes. - Amends TCA Title 68, Chapter 11.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Esther Helton-Haynes

TN bill protects quality improvement committee confidentiality even when healthcare providers disclose findings to patients, shielding internal safety reviews from legal discovery.

Signed by Senate Speaker
#healthcare
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 2259

Legislative bill overview

HB 2259 clarifies that when healthcare providers or organizations voluntarily disclose information about quality improvement committee (QIC) activities to patients or their families, this disclosure does not forfeit the legal protections (privilege and confidentiality) that normally shield QIC records from legal discovery. The bill amends Tennessee's healthcare statute to explicitly protect these communications while allowing providers to share information with patients.

Why is this important

Quality improvement committees are internal hospital/healthcare mechanisms designed to review adverse events and medical errors to improve patient safety—but they require confidentiality to encourage honest, candid discussions. This bill attempts to balance transparency with privacy by allowing providers to discuss QIC findings directly with affected patients without triggering automatic loss of legal protections that could expose all QIC documents to lawsuits. This matters because it may affect patients' legal leverage in malpractice cases and healthcare organizations' litigation exposure.

Potential points of contention

  • Patient litigation rights: Critics may argue this protects healthcare organizations at patients' expense by limiting discovery of internal safety reviews, potentially making it harder for injured patients to access evidence in lawsuits
  • "Good faith" definition: The bill relies on undefined "good faith" disclosure standards, which could create litigation over whether a provider's disclosure was genuinely good faith or strategically calculated
  • Transparency vs. privilege conflict: Consumer advocates may view this as preferring healthcare provider confidentiality over public accountability for medical errors and safety failures

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.