Committee deadlocks on physician‑title bill after broad testimony on transparency and enforcement

Committee members heard prolonged testimony on House Bill 247, the Health Care Practitioner Transparency Act, which would require health‑care practitioners to disclose credentials and prevent misleading claims about scope of practice. Proponents included physicians, medical associations and licensing boards; a disability advocate and some commenters flagged edge cases.

Representative Pamela Herndon presented the committee substitute, saying the measure is intended to provide patients “transparency” about who is providing care and to prohibit deceptive statements. Senator Martin Hickey, introduced as a physician and cosponsor, described the bill’s aim this way: if a practitioner calls themself “doctor,” they should explain their field and credentials so patients know whether they are seeing, for example, an MD, DO, PhD or another credentialed provider.

Supporters who testified included physician Margaret Miller and representatives of the New Mexico Medical Society, the New Mexico Medical Board, the Greater Albuquerque Medical Association, the New Mexico Academy of Ophthalmology and the New Mexico Society of Anesthesiologists. Several speakers said the bill is largely about name‑badge clarity and informing patients; Linda Siegel (representing nurse practitioners and allied professionals) said the measure is “primarily a name badge bill.” Jason Espinosa of the Greater Albuquerque Medical Association said the bill resulted from stakeholder collaboration and would improve patient safety by giving consumers “clarity when choosing their providers.”

Committee discussion ranged widely. Members asked whether the substitute’s removal of a formal definition of “advertisement” undermined enforcement while noting the substitute retained a requirement that advertising include credentials. Members pressed whether the bill creates any new private cause of action or enforcement mechanism; the sponsor and experts repeatedly said the substitute does not create a private right of action and that enforcement would proceed through existing avenues such as licensing boards or the Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Representative Thompson and other members raised concerns that the bill’s language — including a definition referencing treatment of “disease, defect or injury” and the term “clinical setting” — might not capture practitioners who work outside conventional clinical locations, such as pools or schools, or those who treat developmental delays. Several legislators sought clarity about scope‑of‑practice overlap and whether the bill could be used to bring more litigation.

After discussion the committee voted on the substitute. The roll call produced a 3–3 tie (Block and Hogg and the chair recorded votes as described in the transcript), and the committee reported the substitute as tied; the clerk stated the bill was tabled as a result of the tied vote.

Votes at a glance House Bill 247 (committee substitute): Motion — committee do pass recommendation. Vote: tie 3–3. Outcome: tied; bill tabled in committee.