HB 1507
In CommitteeHouse
Health care nondisclosure
Limiting health care nondisclosure agreements.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill bans health care providers from using agreements that prevent patients from discussing alleged medical errors, malpractice, or crimes. Such clauses are void, and providers who enforce them can be sued for damages. The law applies retroactively starting July 1, 2025, and requires providers to notify patients about voided clauses in prior agreements.
- Makes it illegal for health care providers to include nondisclosure or nondisparagement clauses in agreements with patients about alleged medical malpractice, torts, or crimes.
- Such clauses are void and unenforceable even if they appear in settlement agreements, payment-for-release agreements, or other health care-related contracts.
- Providers who violate the law can be sued for actual or statutory damages of $10,000, plus attorney fees and costs.
- Requires providers to notify patients (and others bound by old agreements) within one year of July 1, 2025 if their prior agreements contain unenforceable clauses.
- Allows courts to apply the law retroactively (from July 1, 2025) to invalidate old clauses, but only to prevent future enforcement—not to award damages for past existence of such clauses.
Who is affected
- Patients and their families — Patients who have signed or may be asked to sign agreements that prevent them from speaking about alleged medical errors or malpractice; they gain the right to freely discuss such issues without fear of legal penalty.
- Health care providers (doctors, hospitals, clinics, etc.) — Must avoid including unenforceable nondisclosure or nondisparagement clauses in settlement or other agreements with patients; may face civil liability if they do.
- Health care administrators and legal counsel — May need to update internal policies and training to ensure compliance with the new law, including identifying and notifying patients about voided clauses in prior agreements.
- Attorneys and dispute resolution professionals — May be involved in resolving disputes over previously signed agreements containing prohibited clauses; may represent either patients or providers in civil claims under the new law.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (4)
By invalidating secrecy clauses in medical malpractice cases, the bill supports early identification and public awareness of systemic safety failures—potentially reducing repeat harm and improving institutional learning, though direct causal links to safety improvement are indirect.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6), (9), (10)Mandated notification to patients about voided clauses in prior agreements empowers them with knowledge of their rights, enabling more informed participation in care and legal decisions—especially beneficial for vulnerable or previously coerced patients.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(9)Retroactive invalidation (from July 1, 2025) prevents future enforcement of coercive secrecy agreements—even those signed years earlier—protecting patients from ongoing intimidation and silencing, though damages for past enforcement are limited.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(10)Civil cause of action with $10,000 statutory damages (plus fees) gives patients a meaningful remedy against providers who attempt to enforce void clauses—deterrence effect is strong for large providers with deep pockets, but may be less effective for small clinics.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)
Potential Concerns (1)
Patients and families gain the legal right to freely discuss alleged medical errors, malpractice, or crimes without fear of contractual penalties—enhancing transparency, accountability, and informed decision-making in future care.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a), (2), (3), (4)
Who Is Most Affected
Patients—especially those from marginalized or low-income backgrounds—who may have signed silence agreements under duress or without legal advice—gain enforceable rights to speak about harm, seek community support, and report errors without legal risk.
Large health systems and insurers face higher compliance costs and litigation exposure; small providers may struggle with notice requirements and legal risks, but most will adapt with minimal financial impact. Overall, the burden falls disproportionately on institutional actors with resources to absorb it.
Administrators and legal counsel must update contracts, train staff, and manage patient notifications—adding administrative burden, especially for small practices without legal teams. Larger systems can absorb this more easily.
Attorneys gain new litigation opportunities, especially in class actions or high-damage cases; however, statutory damages cap ($10,000) limits profit motive, and many patients may still lack access to legal representation.