An Act to amend and reenact §§ 54.1-2722 and 54.1-3408 of the Code of Virginia, relating to dental hygienist licensure; dentists eligible to practice in a foreign country or jurisdiction.
HB1036 revises Virginia’s dental hygiene licensure laws and related supervision rules. The bill allows the Board of Dentistry to license dental hygienists who are graduates of approved out-of-country dental schools or accredited dental hygiene programs, and it expands licensure pathways for applicants licensed in other jurisdictions, including certain applicants educated outside the United States who were or are eligible to practice dentistry in a foreign country or jurisdiction. It also preserves the Board’s authority to set examination, clinical, character, and regulatory requirements for licensure.
The bill also clarifies what dental hygienists may do under a dentist’s direction or supervision. It authorizes hygienists to provide educational, diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive services, administer topical fluorides under an order or standing protocol, and, if authorized by a dentist and properly trained, administer nitrous oxide and, for adults, local anesthesia. It further defines “general supervision” and provides for inactive licensure and activation requirements. In addition, the bill permits dental hygienists employed by the Virginia Department of Health or the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services to provide preventive and educational care under remote supervision pursuant to agency protocols adopted by the Board.
The bill’s impact is to broaden access to dental hygiene licensure and to expand the settings and supervision models under which dental hygienists may practice in Virginia. It amends §§ 54.1-2722 and 54.1-3408 of the Code of Virginia, affecting the Board of Dentistry, dental hygienist applicants, dentists supervising hygienists, and public health agencies that employ hygienists. It also affects the administration of certain Schedule VI controlled substances in dental settings and the regulatory framework for public health dental services.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill’s enactment is favorable, as it was approved and enacted as Chapter 253. Although no committee transcripts or recorded votes are provided, the final passage suggests the measure had sufficient support and was not derailed by major opposition in the available record. The bill appears to be framed as a workforce and access-to-care measure, especially for public health and underserved settings.
The main points of contention likely center on scope of practice, supervision, and patient safety, particularly the expansion of remote supervision and the authorization for hygienists to administer anesthesia and nitrous oxide under dentist direction. Another potential issue is the licensure of applicants educated or licensed outside the United States, which may raise questions about equivalency standards and regulatory oversight. The bill addresses these concerns by leaving significant qualification and training details to Board regulations and by requiring consultation with professional associations in developing public health protocols.
HB1036 amends §§ 54.1-2722 and 54.1-3408 of the Code of Virginia to expand dental hygienist licensure pathways, clarify permissible duties, and authorize additional supervision and administration protocols. It affects the Board of Dentistry’s licensing and regulatory authority, the practice rights of dental hygienists, dentists who supervise them, and public health agencies using hygienists in remote-supervision models.
The available record indicates a generally positive or at least noncontroversial reception, as the bill was enacted into law as Chapter 253. No committee debate or vote breakdown is provided, but the final approval suggests broad enough support for passage. The bill appears aimed at increasing workforce flexibility and access to dental care, especially in public health contexts.
Likely areas of concern include whether expanding licensure to foreign-trained applicants could dilute standards, whether remote supervision provides adequate patient oversight, and whether allowing hygienists to administer nitrous oxide and local anesthesia increases clinical risk. These concerns would most likely come from stakeholders focused on professional standards, patient safety, or the limits of dental hygienist scope of practice, while supporters would emphasize access to care, workforce shortages, and public health delivery.