A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 54.1-2404.3, relating to health care providers; caller identification information; civil penalty.
HB782 would add a new section to the Code of Virginia requiring health care providers to make sure the caller identification information associated with their practice clearly identifies the practice to the person receiving the call. The bill is aimed at preventing misleading or deceptive caller ID displays in health care-related phone calls, so that patients and other recipients can tell who is calling.
The bill also creates a civil penalty for any person who knowingly causes a telephone to ring and uses false caller identification information that misrepresents the caller as a health care provider. The penalty may be up to $500 per violation, plus reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs. The Attorney General would be authorized to bring enforcement actions in the name of the Commonwealth, seek injunctions, and collect penalties, which would be deposited into the Literary Fund.
HB782 would create a new statutory obligation for health care providers regarding outbound caller ID practices and add a new enforcement mechanism for false caller identification tied to health care providers. It would supplement existing Virginia law on caller identification fraud by specifically addressing misrepresentation of a caller as a health care provider, and it would give the Attorney General authority to pursue civil enforcement and injunctive relief. The bill would affect health care practices, telemarketing or spoofing conduct involving provider identities, and any person or entity using deceptive caller ID in this context.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of debate or partisan division. Based on the bill’s text, the measure appears to be framed as a consumer-protection and anti-fraud bill intended to improve transparency in health care communications. Its referral to the Health and Human Services Committee and subsequent being left in committee suggest it did not advance, but the record provided does not indicate whether that was due to opposition, timing, or other procedural reasons.
The main potential point of contention is the scope of the new caller ID requirement and civil penalty, especially for health care providers and any third parties handling calls on their behalf. Questions could arise about what counts as sufficiently identifying a practice, how false caller ID would be proven, and whether the $500 penalty plus fees is appropriate. Another possible issue is enforcement authority, since the bill empowers the Attorney General to bring actions and seek injunctions, which may raise concerns about compliance burdens and litigation exposure for providers and related call services.