WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 988

Relating to: video recording of surgical procedures, providing an exemption from emergency rule procedures, granting rule-making authority, and providing a penalty. (FE)

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Karen Kirsch and 3 co-sponsors

The bill sets standards for video recording of surgical procedures and gives the state authority to enact rules and penalties to govern consent, privacy, storage, and use of those

Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 988

Summary of Assembly Bill 988 (2025) – Wisconsin

Note: This summary reflects the bill’s stated purpose, provisions, and potential impact based on available bill text and introductory materials. If you need the exact statutory language, consult the official bill text.

1) Main purpose and intent

  • AB 988 relates to videotaping of surgical procedures.
  • It also addresses procedural rules (an exemption from emergency rule procedures), grants rule-making authority related to the measure, and provides a penalty.
  • In broad terms, the bill appears designed to regulate whether and how surgical procedures can be video recorded, while giving the executive or administrative branch authority to issue related rules and establish penalties for noncompliance.

2) Key provisions and changes

  • Video recording of surgical procedures:
    • Establishes standards or requirements governing the video recording of surgical procedures. The exact scope (e.g., who may record, when recording is permissible, consent requirements, storage and privacy protections, consent from patients, and who can view or use recordings) would be defined in the text.
  • Exemption from emergency rule procedures:
    • Provides an exemption from the standard emergency rulemaking process for certain provisions of the act. This typically means that rules implementing AB 988 could become effective more rapidly than under normal rulemaking timelines, subject to any other statutory safeguards.
  • Rule-making authority:
    • Grants or clarifies authority for a state agency (likely health-related) to adopt administrative rules implementing the video-recording requirements. This would include rulemaking processes, definitions, enforcement mechanisms, and administrative procedures.
  • Penalty:
    • Establishes penalties for violations of the bill’s provisions. Penalties could include fines, disciplinary actions, or other sanctions as determined by the implementing agency and statutory framework.

3) Who or what would be affected

  • Medical providers and facilities:
    • Hospitals, surgical centers, and individual surgeons or medical teams performing surgical procedures could be affected by recording requirements and the need to obtain patient consent, secure recordings, and comply with storage and privacy rules.
  • Patients:
    • Patients undergoing surgery may gain protections or requirements related to consent for recording, privacy of their procedure, and access to recordings, depending on the bill’s privacy and consent provisions.
  • Health care administrators and compliance staff:
    • Responsible for implementing recording policies, obtaining consent, maintaining records, and ensuring adherence to any established penalties.
  • State agencies:
    • A health-related state department or agency would have rule-making authority to implement the act’s provisions, including creating definitions, procedures, and enforcement mechanisms.
  • Legal and liability considerations:
    • The bill could affect informed consent processes, patient privacy rights, and potential liability related to recording and disclosure of surgical procedures.

4) Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Introduction and referral:
    • Introduced January 30, 2026, by Representatives Sinicki, Kirsch, Stubbs, and Ortiz-Velez; cosponsored by Senator Ratcliff.
    • Referred to the Assembly Committee on Health, Aging and Long-Term Care.
  • Status:
    • As of the latest available update, the bill had not passed; it was introduced and referred for committee consideration. Action history notes a failed passage attempt pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 on March 23, 2026, indicating a potential later legislative hurdle or resubmission pathway.
  • Rulemaking timeline:
    • The exemption from emergency rule procedures suggests an expedited path for implementing rules if the bill progresses, but actual timelines would depend on subsequent committee action, floor votes, and any required rulemaking procedures adopted by the relevant agency.

5) Notes and considerations

  • The exact scope, including:
    • What entities must comply (which procedures, which settings),
    • Consent and privacy protections for patients,
    • Data storage, access, retention, and destruction of video recordings,
    • Exceptions (e.g., for medical education, quality improvement, or certain emergencies),
    • Penalty amounts or enforcement mechanisms,
    • Specific agency designations for rulemaking, would be defined in the bill text and subsequent rules.
  • Stakeholders may include medical professionals, hospital administrations, patient advocacy groups, and privacy/security regulators.

If you want, I can pull the official bill text and provide a line-by-line or section-by-section breakdown of the provisions, definitions, and penalties.

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

Sign in to ask a question.