West Virginia House Bill HB2326

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 telehealth practice requirements and definitions

Summary

HB2326 authorizes the West Virginia Board of Respiratory Care to promulgate a legislative rule governing telehealth practice requirements and definitions. The bill does not itself create a broad new telehealth program or change licensure standards directly; instead, it gives legal effect to a specific administrative rule filed by the board and revised in response to objections from the Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee. The measure is narrowly focused on respiratory care and telehealth, allowing the board to set the operational requirements and definitions that apply when respiratory care services are delivered remotely. In practical terms, it supports the board’s ability to regulate how respiratory therapists and related providers may use telehealth within the scope of their practice under state law.

Impact

If enacted, HB2326 would amend West Virginia Code §64-9-1 to authorize the Board of Respiratory Care’s telehealth rule, making the rule enforceable as part of state administrative law. The bill affects the Board of Respiratory Care, respiratory care practitioners, and any patients receiving respiratory care services through telehealth, while leaving the detailed standards to the agency rule itself.

Sentiment

The available record suggests little overt controversy or opposition. Because the bill is a rule-authorization measure rather than a substantive policy overhaul, the general sentiment appears procedural and supportive, aimed at allowing the Board of Respiratory Care to implement a revised telehealth rule after review by the Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the scope of authority being delegated to the Board of Respiratory Care to define telehealth practice requirements and definitions through rulemaking rather than statute. Any concerns would likely center on how the rule affects provider obligations, patient access, and the boundaries of respiratory care delivered remotely, but no specific objections, votes, or committee debate are included in the available record.