West Virginia House Bill HB2324

West Virginia 2025 Regular Session

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

Caption

Relating to authorizing the Board of Respiratory Care to promulgate a legislative rule relating to criteria for licensure

Summary

HB2324 authorizes the West Virginia Board of Respiratory Care to promulgate a legislative rule governing criteria for licensure. The bill does not create a new licensing program; instead, it approves a previously filed rule and incorporates several amendments to the proposed licensure criteria for respiratory care professionals. The amendments in the bill revise how the rule treats applicants and licensees by deleting certain subsections and changing date-based distinctions. In particular, the bill removes provisions that distinguished between individuals holding credentials on or after July 1, 2022, and those holding them before that date, and it strikes other subsections related to licensure criteria and respiratory therapists licensed before July 1, 2022. The practical effect is to update and narrow the Board’s rulemaking authority over licensure standards for respiratory care practitioners in West Virginia.

Impact

The bill amends §64-9-1 of the West Virginia Code, which is the statutory mechanism used to authorize legislative rules from various boards and agencies. If enacted, it would give legal effect to the Board of Respiratory Care’s licensure criteria rule, as modified by the Legislature, and thereby affect applicants for respiratory care licensure, current licensees, and the Board’s administration of credentialing standards. It primarily impacts professional regulation rather than general public law, by shaping who may qualify for licensure and under what conditions.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears procedural and neutral. The bill is presented as a routine authorization of an agency rule, with no visible opposition or support expressed in the available context. The legislative changes appear technical and administrative rather than controversial in the materials provided.

Contention

No specific contention is documented in the provided transcripts or voting history, but the bill’s amendments suggest the main policy issue is how licensure criteria should apply across different time periods and applicant categories. The deleted and revised provisions indicate possible concern about grandfathering, transition rules, and whether older and newer respiratory care credentials should be treated differently. Any disagreement would likely center on fairness to existing practitioners versus the Board’s desire for updated licensure standards.