HB1795 would standardize criminal history screening and discipline rules across a broad set of Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (DFPR) health-care licensing statutes. For the listed professions— including acupuncture, athletic training, dentistry, massage therapy, medicine, nursing, optometry, orthotics/prosthetics/pedorthics, physical therapy, physician assistants, podiatric medicine, respiratory care, and registered surgical assistants/technologists—the bill requires that any DFPR criminal-history verification process used for applicants be applied to all applicants for licensure, renewal applicants, and others whose conduct warrants license review. It also adds new “criminal history” sections in several acts to make that requirement explicit.
The bill further creates a uniform rule that, for offenses listed in the Health Care Worker Background Check Act committed after the bill’s effective date, a finding of guilt, guilty plea, or no contest plea is a disqualifying offense and triggers automatic license revocation once DFPR is notified. Under the bill, the only appeal is if the criminal conviction is later reversed. In addition, the bill amends the Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act to state that crime victims may file a complaint with the licensing agency or department that regulates the accused if the accused holds a professional license, certificate, permit, or registration.
HB1795 would significantly affect state licensing law by making criminal-background review more uniform and more automatic across multiple professional practice acts. It would expand DFPR’s authority to revoke licenses based on specified criminal convictions, while also preserving many existing disciplinary grounds, mental/physical examination powers, tax-delinquency enforcement, and child/elder-abuse reporting obligations already found in the affected acts. The bill takes effect six months after becoming law.
The stated rationale in the bill is public protection: the findings emphasize patient safety, trust in health professionals, and concern that background-check requirements currently vary widely across professions. The bill’s overall tone is punitive and protective, especially toward patients and victims, and it appears designed to close gaps where licensed health-care professionals may have continued practicing after serious criminal conduct. No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented legislative debate in the supplied materials; however, the structure of the bill suggests likely support from proponents of stronger patient-safety and victim-rights protections, and potential concern from licensees or professional groups about automatic revocation, reduced individualized review, and the breadth of offenses covered.
HB1795 would amend 13 professional licensing acts and the Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act. It would require DFPR to apply criminal-history verification processes uniformly to initial applicants, renewal applicants, and licensees subject to review, and it would add new statutory sections in several acts expressly requiring that treatment. The bill also would mandate automatic revocation for specified post-effective-date criminal convictions or pleas tied to the Health Care Worker Background Check Act, limiting appeals to cases where the conviction is overturned. In practical terms, it would tighten licensure eligibility and disciplinary enforcement for a wide range of health-care and related professions, while also expanding victims’ ability to complain to the relevant licensing authority.
The bill’s stated and apparent policy direction is strongly protective of patients, clients, and crime victims, with a clear emphasis on public safety, professional accountability, and uniform background-check standards. The findings section frames the measure as a response to inconsistent screening and underreported misconduct, including sexual assault by health-care professionals. Because no committee transcript or vote history was provided, there is no recorded opposition or support in the supplied materials; nonetheless, the bill’s automatic-revocation approach and broad application across multiple professions suggest it would likely be viewed favorably by advocates for stronger regulation and more cautiously by professional licensees concerned about due process and the loss of individualized disciplinary discretion.
The main point of contention is the bill’s shift from discretionary, case-by-case licensing discipline to automatic revocation for certain criminal outcomes. Supporters are likely to emphasize patient safety, consistency across professions, and stronger protections for victims. Potential critics—such as professional associations, licensees, or due-process advocates—may object that the bill reduces individualized review, treats all listed offenses categorically, and limits appeals to reversal of the underlying conviction. Another possible concern is the breadth of the bill, which applies the same framework across many different practice acts with different existing disciplinary standards.