An Act to amend and reenact § 54.1-113 of the Code of Virginia, to amend the Code of Virginia by adding sections numbered 54.1-202.1 and 54.1-2401.1, and to repeal § 54.1-2708.2 of the Code of Virginia, relating to professions and occupations; adjustment of fees by regulatory boards; recovery of disciplinary and monitoring costs.
HB796 revises how Virginia regulatory boards set and manage fees, with a focus on boards within the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation and the Department of Health Professions. The bill requires boards to review their accounts after each biennium and, when reserves or revenues exceed specified thresholds, reduce fees and distribute excess revenue to current regulants. It also authorizes boards to adjust fees when collections and expenses diverge by more than 10 percent, and permits fee changes tied to inflation up to one and one-half times the inflation rate, subject to limits on excessive fee increases and, beginning July 1, 2028, limits on fund balances for most boards.
The bill also restricts the use of nongeneral funds collected from health regulatory board fees, directing those monies to cover only the expenses of the health regulatory boards, the Health Practitioners' Monitoring Program, and the Department of Health Professions, with limited exceptions. In addition, it creates a process for boards to amend fee regulations through notice, public hearing, and reporting requirements, while exempting those fee regulations from most of the Administrative Process Act. The bill further adds provisions on recovery of disciplinary and monitoring costs and repeals an existing section of the Code related to those issues.
The bill’s impact is to tighten oversight of professional licensing fees and to make fee-setting more responsive to actual board costs, while also limiting the accumulation and transfer of surplus funds. It affects a broad range of licensed professions regulated by the state, including health professions and other occupational boards, and it changes how those boards may finance disciplinary and monitoring activities. State agencies involved include the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, the Department of Health Professions, and the Secretary of Finance through notice and reporting procedures.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text and its enactment is that of fiscal restraint and accountability in professional regulation. The measure appears designed to protect licensees from overcollection while preserving boards’ ability to maintain adequate operating funds. Because no committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the supplied materials.
Notable points of contention likely center on the balance between fee relief for regulants and the boards’ need for financial flexibility. The most significant policy questions are whether surplus funds should be returned to licensees, how aggressively boards may raise fees to keep pace with inflation and expenses, and whether limits on fund balances could constrain board operations or enforcement capacity. Another potential issue is the bill’s restriction on transferring health board funds, which may be viewed as protecting dedicated revenues but also reducing budgetary flexibility for state officials.
HB796 amends § 54.1-113 and adds §§ 54.1-202.1 and 54.1-2401.1 to the Code of Virginia, while repealing § 54.1-2708.2. It changes the statutory framework governing fee-setting by regulatory boards, imposes reserve and surplus limits, authorizes certain inflation-based fee adjustments, requires public notice and hearings for fee increases, and mandates reporting to legislative finance committees. It also restricts the use of health regulatory board fee revenues and addresses recovery of disciplinary and monitoring costs, affecting licensing boards, regulants, and the Department of Health Professions and Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation.
The overall sentiment appears favorable toward greater fiscal discipline and transparency in professional licensing fees. The bill is structured to prevent excessive reserves, return surplus funds to current licensees, and ensure fee increases are justified by actual costs. No recorded committee debate or vote history was provided, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or support beyond the bill’s enacted status.
The main areas of potential contention are the limits on board fund balances, the requirement to distribute excess revenue to current regulants, and the constraints on transferring health board funds outside the Department of Health Professions. Boards may favor flexibility to maintain stable operations and enforcement capacity, while licensees and fiscal watchdogs may support tighter controls and fee reductions. Another likely point of debate is the bill’s allowance for fee increases tied to inflation and the extent to which those increases should be subject to administrative procedure requirements and legislative oversight.