A BILL to amend and reenact § 63.2-1805 of the Code of Virginia, relating to assisted living facilities; involuntary discharge; notice.
HB1088 amends Virginia’s assisted living facility law, specifically § 63.2-1805, to strengthen resident protections around involuntary discharge and related facility obligations. The bill would require assisted living facilities to give residents, their legal representatives, and certain state oversight entities at least 45 days’ notice before most involuntary discharges, instead of 30 days, unless an emergency discharge is necessary. It also expands the required contents of discharge notices, including reasons for discharge, appeal rights, and information about the resident’s right to remain in the facility during the appeal process in non-emergency cases.
The bill also adds or clarifies several disclosure and care requirements for assisted living facilities. These include requirements to disclose services, fees, staffing, ownership structure, resident rights, liability insurance, and whether the facility has an on-site emergency electrical power source and trained staff to operate it. It further directs the Board to establish minimum liability insurance coverage tiers based on facility size, and it reinforces obligations related to reassessments, discharge planning, adult abuse reporting training, and acceptance of residents returning after temporary detention under certain mental health procedures.
HB1088 would amend § 63.2-1805 of the Code of Virginia and would require the Board of assisted living facility regulation to adopt or revise regulations on admissions, discharge, appeals, relocation assistance, liability insurance disclosures, emergency power disclosures, and related resident protections. It would affect assisted living facilities, residents, legal representatives, the Department, and the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman, while also touching interactions with behavioral health and developmental services systems. The bill would not itself create a new standalone program, but it would tighten regulatory standards governing when and how residents may be removed and what information facilities must provide before admission and before discharge.
The bill appears generally protective of residents and consumer-focused, with its core changes aimed at giving residents more notice, more transparency, and more procedural rights before involuntary discharge. The absence of recorded votes or committee transcripts limits direct evidence of debate, but the bill’s structure suggests a policy preference for stronger oversight and clearer facility accountability. Because it was left in committee, the available record indicates it did not advance, though no formal vote history is provided here.
The main likely points of contention are the longer discharge notice period, the added appeal and relocation obligations, and the expanded disclosure and insurance requirements imposed on facilities. Assisted living operators may view the 45-day notice requirement and mandatory notice to state entities as burdensome, especially in cases involving nonpayment, behavioral issues, or residents whose care needs exceed facility capacity. Another possible area of dispute is the bill’s treatment of emergency discharges and the limits on when facilities may remove residents, balanced against the bill’s resident-protection goals. The bill also may raise operational concerns for smaller facilities regarding the proposed insurance tiers and emergency power disclosure/training requirements.