An Act to amend and reenact § 54.1-2911 of the Code of Virginia, relating to Board of Medicine; membership; removal of residence requirements.
HB1139 amends the law governing the Virginia Board of Medicine’s membership. The bill updates the composition language for the Board, clarifying that it includes one medical physician from each congressional district, one osteopathic physician, one podiatrist, one chiropractor, and four citizen members. It also preserves the rule that no two citizen members may reside in the same congressional district and keeps the existing terms, officer structure, quorum rules, and executive committee provisions.
The central substantive change is the removal of the residency requirement for medical physician board members. Under prior law, if a physician member stopped residing in the district from which they were appointed, their seat became vacant unless the move was due to redistricting. HB1139 eliminates that vacancy trigger, allowing physician members to remain on the Board even if they no longer live in the appointing district. The bill also retains the requirement that the Board’s executive director be licensed or eligible for licensure in Virginia as either a physician or attorney.
The bill directly amends § 54.1-2911 of the Code of Virginia, affecting the statutory structure and membership eligibility rules for the Board of Medicine. Its practical effect is to reduce the likelihood of mid-term vacancies for physician board seats caused solely by changes in residence, which may help maintain continuity in Board operations and appointments. The change affects the Board of Medicine, the Governor’s appointment process, and current or future physician board members who may move outside their original congressional district.
The available record shows no committee transcript, vote tally, or recorded opposition, so there is no documented controversy in the provided materials. The bill was enacted as Chapter 741, which suggests it moved through the legislative process successfully and without visible resistance in the supplied history. Overall, the measure appears to have been treated as a technical or administrative update to board membership rules rather than a major policy change.
The only notable point of potential contention is the removal of the district-residency requirement for physician members. Supporters would likely view this as a practical fix that prevents unnecessary vacancies and preserves experienced members, while any critics might argue that it weakens geographic accountability or the connection between board representation and the district from which a member was appointed. No specific objections or competing viewpoints are included in the provided discussion materials.