Relating gnerally to the Board of Dieticians
HB3399 revises West Virginia’s laws governing dietitians and nutritionists. It amends and reenacts the state’s dietetics article to clarify who may use protected titles such as “dietitian,” “licensed dietitian,” “nutritionist,” and related abbreviations, and it expands the licensing framework to cover both dietitians and nutritionists. The bill also defines key terms such as medical nutrition therapy, nutrition care services, nutrition diagnosis, nutrition intervention, and non-medical weight control, and it distinguishes those activities from general nutrition education, wellness coaching, and other non-medical services.
The bill establishes detailed licensure pathways for dietitians and nutritionists, including education, supervised practice, examination, reciprocity, provisional permits, renewal, reinstatement, and discipline. It also reestablishes the West Virginia Board of Licensed Dietitians and Nutritionists, sets its membership and duties, creates a special revenue fund for board operations, and authorizes the board to promulgate rules, issue licenses, collect fees, and enforce the article through investigations and penalties. A new section sets standards for qualified supervisors overseeing students, trainees, and provisional licensees, including supervision, documentation, and responsibility requirements.
HB3399 would significantly update state regulation of dietetics and nutrition practice by tightening title protection and making medical nutrition therapy a licensed activity after June 30, 2025, subject to listed exceptions. It would affect dietitians, nutritionists, students, trainees, out-of-state telehealth providers, other licensed health professionals, WIC-related personnel, and individuals providing non-medical nutrition or weight-control services. The bill also reestablishes the licensing board through July 2030 and preserves existing licensees and applicants under prior rules if they applied before July 1, 2025.
The bill appears to be framed as a professional regulation and consumer-protection measure, with the stated purpose of clarifying licensing and scope of practice rather than creating a new program. Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the available record. The text itself suggests an intent to modernize and standardize the profession’s regulatory structure, including telehealth and supervision rules.
The main points of potential contention are the scope of who may provide nutrition-related services and who may use protected professional titles. The bill draws a sharp line between licensed medical nutrition therapy and broader wellness, coaching, and non-medical weight-control services, which could be disputed by unlicensed practitioners, health coaches, and some allied health professionals. Another likely issue is the expanded licensing and supervision requirements for nutritionists, including education, supervised practice hours, and board oversight, which may be viewed as either necessary consumer protection or as a barrier to entry. The telehealth provisions and the board’s authority to regulate out-of-state practitioners may also raise jurisdictional or access concerns.