Tennessee House Bill HB0109

Tennessee 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/11/23

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 63 and Title 68, relative to the healing arts.

Impact

The amendment anticipated by HB 0109 would have a direct impact on the structure of board governance for healthcare disciplines covered under the healing arts. By increasing the number of board members, the bill aims to create a more comprehensive governing body that could address a broader range of issues affecting healthcare professionals. This could potentially lead to more informed decision-making and regulatory practices, which in turn could enhance the quality of healthcare services provided in the state.

Summary

House Bill 0109 proposes an amendment to Tennessee Code Annotated, specifically targeting Title 63 and Title 68 pertaining to the healing arts. The bill seeks to increase the minimum number of members on a professional board within the healing arts from ten to twenty. This change is intended to enhance representation within the board, likely allowing for a wider array of professional insights and expertise to guide the regulation of healing arts professions in Tennessee.

Sentiment

General sentiment surrounding HB 0109 appears to be supportive, particularly among those advocating for improved governance in healthcare regulation. Proponents argue that a larger board would bring diverse perspectives, more thorough deliberation, and ultimately benefit the public by improving healthcare standards. However, there may also be concerns regarding the increased complexity and coordination required to manage a larger board effectively, which some stakeholders might view as a drawback.

Contention

One notable point of contention addressed in discussions surrounding HB 0109 could revolve around the practical implications of expanding the board size. Critics may raise concerns about the potential for inefficiencies or difficulties in reaching consensus among a greater number of board members. Additionally, stakeholders might argue about the need for such a change in light of current board effectiveness, questioning whether the benefits of increased representation outweigh the challenges posed by managing a larger group.