2025 · Regular session · House bill
HB4076
HB4076 prohibits health care providers from excluding someone from an organ transplant solely because of vaccination status.
Official caption: Relating to prohibiting organ transplant recipient discrimination on the basis of vaccination status.
Official report lists House author(s): Leach, Cook, Hull. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.
Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.
Bill highlights
Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.
- HB4076 prohibits health care providers from excluding someone from an organ transplant solely because of vaccination status.
- The protection has an important medical exception: after an individualized evaluation, a physician may determine that vaccination status is medically significant to the transplant.
- No person may penalize or take adverse action against a provider solely because it complied with the nondiscrimination provision.
- The existing definition of health care provider includes licensed, certified or otherwise authorized individuals and facilities, including physicians, hospitals and transplant centers.
What does it do?
HB4076 prohibits health care providers from excluding someone from an organ transplant solely because of vaccination status. It covers eligibility decisions, related services such as evaluation, surgery, counseling and postoperative care, referrals, waiting-list placement and lower waiting-list priority. It applies at every stage of the transplant process. The governor signed it June 20, 2025; it took effect September 1, 2025. Final law · History
The protection has an important medical exception: after an individualized evaluation, a physician may determine that vaccination status is medically significant to the transplant. Providers may consider it only to that extent. The law does not require a medically inappropriate transplant, referral or recommendation, and a physician making that determination in good faith does not violate the new section. This is not a guarantee that every unvaccinated person qualifies for a transplant. Section 161.474(a)–(c), (e)
No person may penalize or take adverse action against a provider solely because it complied with the nondiscrimination provision. Providers may develop alternatives to vaccination, including antibody testing, preventive treatments and antiviral therapy, and may explain vaccination’s risks and benefits. These alternatives are permitted, not mandatory or declared medically interchangeable for every patient. Section 161.474(d), (f)
The existing definition of health care provider includes licensed, certified or otherwise authorized individuals and facilities, including physicians, hospitals and transplant centers. The act directed the Health and Human Services Commission’s executive commissioner to adopt any necessary implementing rules by January 1, 2026. That was a rulemaking deadline, not a delay in the law’s September 2025 effective date. Provider definition · Sections 2–3
What changed along the way?
The introduced, House committee, House-passed, Senate committee and final versions contain the same substantive provisions. Both committees reported without amendments, and the official amendment index lists none. The individualized medical exception and good-faith protection were part of the original proposal, not later changes that removed an absolute transplant entitlement. Introduced text · Version index · Amendment index
For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.
Official bill versions
Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.
Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?
Patients whose vaccination status would otherwise be the sole reason for exclusion gain protection and an individualized medical assessment. Providers retain the stated medical judgment and good-faith protection, but may need to adjust screening policies or consider alternatives. The act does not create a supply of donor organs, change every allocation criterion or establish a patient’s treatment price.
The latest fiscal note anticipated no significant state or local-government fiscal impact and assumed state costs could be handled with existing resources. It did not estimate individual clinical costs or prove that alternative risk-reduction measures produce equivalent outcomes. May 19 fiscal note
Review boundary: This is an explanation of the enacted statute, not medical advice or a finding that any particular vaccination requirement is unlawful. Whether vaccination status is medically significant depends on the individualized physician evaluation. The act adds no express damages schedule or new criminal offense; this briefing does not resolve all possible enforcement theories or verify the agency’s later rulemaking completion.
Official sources
- Bill history and latest recorded action
- Bill versions, analyses and fiscal notes
- Action history and votes
- Amendment index
Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.
