House Bill 590 creates the “Patient Safety in Medical Imaging Act” and establishes a new regulatory framework in Chapter 90 for radiologic technologists, radiation therapists, sonographers, and related imaging professionals. It creates the North Carolina Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy Board of Examiners, defines multiple imaging and therapy modalities, and sets licensure standards, educational requirements, examination requirements, renewal rules, fees, and disciplinary authority for practitioners in those fields.
The bill requires licensure for most people performing medical imaging or radiation therapy procedures on humans for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes, and it makes it unlawful for employers to knowingly use unlicensed personnel for those services unless an exemption applies. It also sets out detailed exemptions for licensed practitioners, certain dental personnel, students in training, federal employees, veterinarians, podiatrists, and some advanced practice nurses performing fluoroscopy. The bill includes transition provisions for current professionals, allowing some existing practitioners to continue working if they register with the new board and meet continuing education and supervision requirements.
HB590 would significantly affect state law by adding a new Article 44 to Chapter 90 and by creating a new licensing board with authority to approve educational programs, issue and renew licenses, set fees, investigate complaints, and discipline licensees. It also adds criminal and civil enforcement provisions, making violations a Class 1 misdemeanor and authorizing the board to seek injunctions. The bill phases in implementation beginning July 1, 2025, with the licensing requirement section taking effect January 1, 2026, and directs the board to adopt implementing rules by January 1, 2026.
The overall sentiment in the available record appears favorable but procedural rather than contentious, as reflected by committee substitute approvals and the bill’s continued advancement. No committee transcript or recorded floor vote is provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate in the supplied materials. The bill’s structure suggests a policy goal of improving patient safety and professional standards, which likely supports broad support among proponents of licensure and quality control.
Potential points of contention include the creation of a new licensing regime, the scope of exemptions, the requirement that employers verify licensure, and the possibility that some current workers may need new credentials or board registration to continue practicing. The bill also gives the board discretion to set standards, fees, and scope-of-practice rules, which could raise concerns among affected professionals, employers, and training programs about administrative burden, access to services in rural areas, and the impact on workforce supply.
HB590 would add a new Article 44 to Chapter 90 of the North Carolina General Statutes, creating a statewide licensure and regulatory system for medical imaging and radiation therapy professionals. It would establish the Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy Board of Examiners, authorize it to license multiple modalities, approve educational programs, set fees and continuing education requirements, enforce discipline, and adopt rules. The bill also creates a new misdemeanor offense for unlawful practice and authorizes injunctive relief, while preserving specified exemptions and transition provisions for existing practitioners and certain other health care workers.
The available context shows the bill moving forward through committee substitutes and no recorded opposition in the supplied materials, suggesting generally favorable legislative treatment. Because no committee transcript or vote tally is provided, there is no direct evidence of partisan or stakeholder debate in the record here. The bill’s stated purpose—improving patient safety and ensuring competent personnel perform imaging and radiation therapy—indicates a policy rationale likely to attract support from proponents of professional licensure and patient protection.
The main likely areas of contention are whether the new licensure requirements are too restrictive, how broad the exemptions should be, and whether the board’s authority over standards, fees, and scope of practice could create barriers to practice or access to services. Existing practitioners without current certification may be concerned about transition requirements, registration deadlines, and supervision rules, while employers and rural providers may worry about workforce shortages and compliance costs. Advanced practice clinicians, dental personnel, veterinarians, and other exempted groups may also have an interest in preserving their current practice authority.