West Virginia House Bill HB4305

West Virginia 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/14/26
• Refer: 1/14/26
• Refer: 1/30/26

Caption

Relating to authorizing the Board of Osteopathic Medicine to promulgate a legislative rule relating to osteopathic physician assistants.

Summary

House Bill 4305 is a rule-authorization bill that would approve a legislative rule for the West Virginia Board of Osteopathic Medicine concerning osteopathic physician assistants. The bill does not itself create a new licensing program or substantive practice standards; instead, it authorizes the Board to put into effect a previously filed and revised administrative rule, identified as 24 CSR 02, after it was modified to address objections from the Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee. The measure is narrowly focused on administrative rulemaking under the state code section governing miscellaneous boards and agencies. By authorizing the rule, the Legislature would allow the Board of Osteopathic Medicine to proceed with regulatory provisions affecting osteopathic physician assistants, likely including licensure, supervision, scope of practice, or related professional requirements as set out in the underlying rule. The bill’s practical effect is to give legal force to the Board’s rule within West Virginia’s regulatory framework.

Impact

If enacted, HB4305 would amend §64-9-1 of the West Virginia Code to add authorization for the Board of Osteopathic Medicine’s rule on osteopathic physician assistants. This would make the rule enforceable and integrate it into state administrative law, affecting osteopathic physician assistants and the Board’s oversight of their practice. The bill does not appear to alter statutory licensing provisions directly, but it would validate the Board’s regulatory authority over this profession through the legislative rule process.

Sentiment

Based on the available text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the bill appears to be a routine, technical measure rather than a controversial policy proposal. The language suggests the rule had already been reviewed and revised to satisfy legislative concerns, which typically indicates a cooperative or procedural posture. There is no evidence in the provided materials of organized opposition or strong public controversy.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the content of the underlying administrative rule for osteopathic physician assistants, especially any provisions affecting scope of practice, supervision, or professional requirements. However, no specific objections are documented in the provided transcripts or voting history. The bill itself reflects that the rule was modified to meet objections from the Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee, suggesting any dispute was addressed before introduction of the authorization bill.