Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill allowing health boards to remove certain remediation records from public license lookup after five years
Summary
House Bill 657 would permit boards to remove adverse-action information tied to completion of peer-assistance or substance-use treatment from the publicly searchable licensure verification website five years after completion, while the underlying order remains a public record.
The House Health Full Committee voted to advance House Bill 657, a measure that would let regulatory health boards remove adverse-action notations from the public-facing license verification website five years after a provider completes a board-ordered peer assistance or substance-use treatment program.
Sponsor Leader Hicks described the bill as a workforce and rehabilitation measure. The sponsor said he reduced an earlier 10-year proposal to a five-year post-completion window. During committee discussion, members expressed both support for rehabilitation and concern about patient safety and transparency.
Legal counsel Heather Asbell of legal services explained how the bill would operate: “Following the completion of the treatment program…5 years following the completion date of that program or contract, then the adverse action will be removed from the public-facing licensure verification website. However…the order remains public record as put in 107503.”
Department of Health staff noted practical limits: video and minutes of board proceedings and some licensure-compact records cannot be redacted from other public sources, although the department can remove the entry from the searchable front-end database. The Tennessee Pharmacists Association’s CEO, Anthony Pablo, told members pharmacies and other employers sometimes hire providers who have completed recovery and said the change can help reintegrate trained providers into the workforce while boards retain final authority.
Several members urged caution. Representative Kumar and others asked whether providers could continue to practice during treatment, whether monitoring systems (such as those run by the Tennessee Medical Foundation) would remain active, and how the public would be able to assess provider risk. Legal staff and the department said the bill does not change whether a provider may practice while under contract; those supervision and monitoring decisions remain under each board’s authority. The sponsor said the board retains discretion to deny removal of the notation.
After extended discussion and motion to roll the bill failed, the clerk recorded 15 ayes, 4 nos and 1 present-not-voting; the bill moves to government operations.
