A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 54.1-2400.1:1, relating to health professionals; mandatory suicide training required.
HB1223 would add a new section to the Code of Virginia requiring certain licensed or certified health professionals to complete training in suicide assessment, treatment, and management. The bill creates two training tracks: a recurring six-hour training every six years for a core group of behavioral and mental health professionals, and a one-time training requirement for additional licensed professionals, including physicians, interns, residents, and other board-certified or licensed practitioners not covered by the recurring requirement.
The required training must be approved by the relevant health regulatory board and included on a model list developed under the bill. The measure also specifies that training completed before July 1, 2027, remains valid, which suggests an implementation window for affected professionals and boards. The bill is aimed at expanding suicide-prevention competency across the health care workforce, particularly among providers likely to encounter patients at risk of self-harm.
HB1223 would impose new continuing education and one-time training obligations on multiple categories of health professionals regulated by the Department of Health Professions, including counselors, substance abuse treatment practitioners, marriage and family therapists, behavioral health technicians, qualified mental health professionals, occupational therapists, psychologists, social workers, physicians, interns, and residents. It would require the relevant health regulatory boards to approve qualifying training and maintain or reference a model list of acceptable courses, thereby affecting licensing and renewal compliance practices across several boards and professions.
The available legislative history suggests the bill was treated as a behavioral health measure and did not generate recorded floor debate or votes in the materials provided. Its continuation to the next session by voice vote indicates the proposal was not rejected outright and may have had at least procedural support, but the absence of transcripts or recorded roll-call votes limits the ability to assess detailed support or opposition. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed as a public-health and professional-training initiative rather than a highly partisan measure.
No specific objections or amendments are reflected in the provided transcripts, so there is no documented substantive contention in the record supplied. Potential areas of concern inherent in the bill include the administrative burden on licensing boards, the cost and time required for professionals to complete mandated training, and whether the training requirements are appropriately tailored to different professions. Any disagreement would likely center on implementation details, scope of covered professions, and the frequency of required training rather than the underlying goal of suicide prevention.