Tennessee lawmakers advanced a bill that could create a registry of transgender people in the Volunteer State. Keep up with the latest in LGBTQ + news and politics. Sign up for The Advocate's email newsletter. The Republican -backed legislation, presented as a requirement that insurance companies cover detransition-related care, was placed on the House calendar for a vote on Thursday. The measure would apply to insurance plans that cover gender-affirming treatment. “It costs a fortune to detransition,” Tennessee state Rep. Jeremy Faison said during an earlier House committee hearing. But beyond its insurance provisions, the bill would require voluminous new data collection on people receiving gender-affirming care. Under the proposal, every gender clinic in the state would be required to report detailed information about transition-related care to the Tennessee Department of Health, which the bill describes as a “right to public transparency.” The required disclosures include the date of care or referral, a patient’s age and sex, the specific medications prescribed, including dosage and duration, and any surgical procedures performed, identified by medical billing codes. Providers would also have to report the patient’s state and county of residence, along with the treating provider’s name and contact information. Related : In Memphis, Kayla Gore is building homes — and a future — for Black trans people Related : Tennessee Republicans advance bill targeting what students can call transgender educators That information would be compiled into a statewide report that the Department of Health is required to publish, making it accessible to the public. While the bill states that the report must not include “individually identifiable health information,” privacy advocates say the level of detail required could still allow patients to be identified, particularly in smaller communities or when combined with other publicly available information. The legislation also calls for reporting on patients’ neurological, behavioral, or mental health diagnoses. Taken together, those requirements could effectively function as a public listing of transgender people, advocates warn. Aleksandra Vaca, an independent journalist focused on LGBTQ+ news, reported on Substack that the legislation appears to violate medical privacy laws. “If this is beginning to sound like it violates trans people’s medical privacy, that’s because it does: under HIPAA — which sets medical privacy standards in the United States — providers are prohibited from disclosing any ‘individually identifiable health information…that identifies the individual or for which there is a reasonable basis to believe it can be used to identify the individual,’” Vaca wrote on the Transitics blog. Related : Tennessee Attorney General Obtains Confidential Medical Records of Trans Patients Related : Tennessee lawmakers weigh a dozen new Republican anti-LGBTQ+ bills The proposal goes beyond similar policies adopted elsewhere. In Texas, for example, lawmakers have required Medicaid and private insurers to cover detransition care, a move that has drawn criticism over potential costs. That law, however, does not require the public reporting of detailed medical data tied to individuals receiving care. The Tennessee measure also imposes broader reporting requirements for gender-affirming care than for detransition care. Research consistently shows that detransition is relatively rare. A large study published in JAMA Surgery found that about 1 percent of people who underwent gender-affirming surgery later reported regret. Other analyses, including reviews, have found that when detransition does occur, it is often driven by external pressures such as stigma, discrimination, or lack of access to care, rather than a change in gender identity. A widely cited U.S. transgender survey also found that while some respondents reported temporarily stopping or reversing treatment, most did so because of safety or social factors, not because they no longer identified as transgender. While the bill has cleared multiple House committees and is advancing toward a floor vote, its path in the Senate has been slower. The Senate Commerce and Labor Committee previously recommended passage on a 6-3 vote, but the measure has been tabled twice this month in the Senate Finance, Ways, and Means Committee. It is scheduled to be heard again on Tuesday.