West Virginia House Bill HB2254

West Virginia 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/12/25
• Refer: 2/12/25

Caption

Relating to authorizing the Office of Inspector General to promulgate a legislative rule relating to Behavioral Health Centers Licensure

Summary

HB2254 authorizes the West Virginia Office of Inspector General to promulgate a legislative rule governing Behavioral Health Centers Licensure. The bill does not itself create a new licensing program or substantive standards in statute; instead, it approves a previously filed and revised administrative rule, identified as 71 CSR 25, that was submitted under the state’s rulemaking authority and modified to address objections from the Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee. In practical terms, the bill gives legal effect to the agency’s rule for behavioral health center licensing, allowing the Office of Inspector General to move forward with regulatory requirements for these facilities. The measure is a standard rule-authorizing bill that updates state administrative law by validating the rule as part of the West Virginia Code framework for legislative rules.

Impact

HB2254 affects state law by authorizing an administrative rule rather than amending substantive licensing statutes directly. Its main impact is on the Office of Inspector General and behavioral health centers, which will be subject to the licensure standards, procedures, and compliance requirements contained in the approved rule. The bill reinforces the state’s regulatory oversight of behavioral health facilities and makes the rule enforceable under West Virginia law.

Sentiment

The available record suggests generally routine and neutral support for the bill, with no recorded votes, committee debate, or public testimony indicating opposition. Because the measure is a rule authorization bill and the rule was already revised to address committee objections, the discussion context implies a procedural, noncontroversial posture rather than a policy dispute.

Contention

No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. The only notable issue is that the rule had to be modified to meet objections from the Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee before being refiled, which suggests some technical or drafting concerns during the rule review process. There is no evidence in the record of disagreement over behavioral health licensing policy, agency authority, or the scope of regulation.