West Virginia House Bill HB2307

West Virginia 2025 Regular Session

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

Caption

Relating to authorizing the Board of Occupational Therapy to promulgate a legislative rule relating to competency standards for advanced practice by occupational therapists and occupational therapy assistants

Summary

HB2307 authorizes a legislative rule for the West Virginia Board of Occupational Therapy concerning competency standards for advanced practice by occupational therapists and occupational therapy assistants. The bill does not create a new licensing program or change the underlying occupational therapy statute directly; instead, it approves a rule that the Board filed, revised to address objections from the Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee, and refiled in the State Register. In practical terms, the measure gives legal effect to the Board’s rule at 13 CSR 05, allowing the Board to set and enforce competency standards for advanced practice within the profession. This would affect occupational therapists and occupational therapy assistants who seek advanced practice status, as well as the Board responsible for regulating their qualifications and professional standards.

Impact

HB2307 amends West Virginia Code §64-9-1 to authorize a specific legislative rule of the Board of Occupational Therapy. The bill’s effect is to validate the Board’s competency standards for advanced practice, making the rule enforceable under state law. It primarily impacts occupational therapy practitioners and the state regulatory board, while leaving the broader occupational therapy licensing framework intact.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available context, the bill appears to be a routine regulatory authorization measure with no recorded opposition, votes, or committee debate in the provided materials. The overall sentiment is neutral to favorable, as the bill simply approves a revised rule after it was modified to address legislative review objections.

Contention

No specific points of contention are documented in the provided transcripts or voting history. The only identifiable issue is that the rule had previously drawn objections from the Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee, which the Board addressed before refiling. Any concern would likely center on whether the competency standards for advanced practice are appropriate, but no opposing arguments or stakeholders are identified in the available record.