An Act to direct the Board of Medicine and the Board of Nursing to require certain applicants for licensure and licensure renewal to indicate whether training has been completed on the Electronic Death Registration System.
HB156 directs the Virginia Board of Medicine and the Board of Nursing to revise licensure and licensure-renewal applications for certain health professionals so applicants must state whether they reasonably expect their practice to include signing death certificates. If so, the applicant must also indicate that they have viewed the online tutorial for the Electronic Death Registration System on the Virginia Department of Health website.
The bill applies to doctors of medicine, doctors of osteopathic medicine, physician assistants, and advanced practice registered nurses. It does not create a new training mandate in the traditional sense, but it uses the licensing process to ensure that applicants who may certify deaths are prompted to review the state’s electronic death registration guidance. The act also exempts the initial regulations implementing the bill from the Administrative Process Act, allowing the boards to move more quickly in adopting the required application changes.
HB156 amends the licensure and renewal application procedures administered by the Board of Medicine and the Board of Nursing. It affects physicians, physician assistants, and advanced practice registered nurses whose scope of practice may include signing death certificates, and it ties licensure paperwork to awareness of the Electronic Death Registration System. The bill also gives the two boards authority to implement the changes through initial regulations exempt from the Administrative Process Act, reducing procedural hurdles for the first round of rulemaking.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no documented opposition or debate in the materials provided. The bill’s enactment as Chapter 42 suggests it moved through the process successfully and was accepted as a practical administrative measure. Its subject matter is technical and operational rather than ideological, which is consistent with a generally neutral or low-contention legislative posture.
No specific points of contention are reflected in the provided materials. Potential areas of concern, if raised, would likely involve whether the application-based disclosure is sufficient to ensure meaningful training, whether the requirement adds administrative burden to applicants and licensing boards, and whether exempting the initial regulations from the Administrative Process Act reduces public input. However, none of those issues are documented in the supplied transcripts or vote history.