An Act to amend and reenact §§ 22.1-274 and 22.1-274.01:1 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 22.1-274.01:2, relating to school boards; student diabetes care and management in schools; divisionwide plan required.
HB1301 amends Virginia law governing school health services and diabetes care for students. The bill requires each school board to adopt a divisionwide plan for student diabetes care and management in schools, and it expands the framework for how schools must prepare to respond to students with diabetes. It also continues and clarifies existing authority for school boards to employ or contract for health personnel, while setting expectations for school health staffing and training.
The bill requires school buildings to have a minimum number of employees trained in emergency first aid, CPR, and AED use, and it adds diabetes-specific training requirements where students diagnosed with diabetes attend the school. In larger schools, at least two employees must be trained in insulin and glucagon administration; in smaller schools, at least one employee must be trained. The bill also preserves student self-care rights for students with diabetes, including carrying and using supplies and insulin pump-related care, subject to parental consent and prescriber approval. It further limits discipline of certain school employees who decline to perform nonemergency health-related services or obtain insulin/glucagon training, while preserving the ability of instructional aides and clerical staff to dispense oral medications.
HB1301 affects §§ 22.1-274 and 22.1-274.01:1 and adds § 22.1-274.01:2 to the Code of Virginia. Its practical impact is to formalize school division responsibilities for diabetes preparedness, staff training, and individualized student support, while leaving some staffing ratios aspirational rather than mandatory. It also reinforces the role of school boards in monitoring school health services and funding, and it creates clearer rules for when nonmedical school employees may be asked to assist with diabetes-related care.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill’s enactment is supportive and protective of student health needs, with the legislation appearing aimed at improving safety and access to care for students with diabetes during the school day. No committee transcript or vote data were provided, so there is no recorded debate in the supplied materials. Based on the text alone, the bill appears designed to balance student health protections with limits on compulsory duties for school employees.
The main points of potential contention are the training and care obligations placed on school staff, especially nonmedical employees, and the extent to which school divisions can realistically meet the staffing and training requirements. The bill addresses this by allowing employees without specific health-service duties to decline future nonemergency health-related services and by stating that the nurse-to-student ratio is aspirational rather than mandatory. Another possible issue is the requirement for prescriber authorization and parental consent before certain employees may assist with insulin or glucagon administration.
The bill amends Virginia’s school health services statutes by adding a new divisionwide diabetes care and management planning requirement and by expanding training and preparedness obligations for school personnel. It affects school boards, school employees, students diagnosed with diabetes, and local health departments or local governments that provide personnel to schools. It also clarifies employee protections and limits on discipline for refusing nonemergency health-related services, while preserving student self-management rights and existing medication-administration rules.
The bill’s apparent sentiment is broadly supportive of student health and school safety, with a focus on ensuring that students with diabetes can receive timely care at school. The text suggests a balanced approach: it strengthens preparedness and training requirements while also recognizing practical limits on staffing and employee duties. No vote record or committee discussion was provided, so there is no documented opposition or support beyond the enacted text itself.
The most notable contention points are likely the burden on school divisions to train staff in insulin and glucagon administration, the use of nonmedical employees for health-related tasks, and whether schools can meet the required preparedness standards without disrupting staffing. School employees who are not assigned health duties may object to being asked to perform these services, which the bill addresses by allowing refusal in many cases. Another possible point of concern is that the nurse staffing ratio remains aspirational, which may be viewed as too weak by advocates for stronger school health staffing or too demanding by districts with limited resources.