HB5113 would create a new article in West Virginia law establishing a patient’s right to refuse non-emergency treatment, diagnostic procedures, or routine examinations by a resident when a licensed physician is available. Before an appointment or procedure, patients would have to be asked whether they consent to care from a resident and whether they consent to a resident observing the procedure. If the patient declines, the appointment or procedure would need to be scheduled or conducted when a licensed physician can provide the care.
The bill is framed as a patient-rights measure focused on comfort, trust, and the doctor-patient relationship. It expressly preserves the ability of residents to treat patients in emergency or other urgent situations, so the restriction applies only in non-emergency settings. The bill would add §§16-67-1 and 16-67-2 to the West Virginia Code and would affect hospitals, teaching facilities, physicians, residents, and patients receiving routine care or procedures.
Impact
HB5113 would amend the West Virginia Code by creating a new article on a patient’s right to choose physician, specifically regulating when medical residents may provide care. It would require advance consent for resident participation in non-emergency care and would obligate providers to ensure a licensed physician is available if the patient declines resident involvement. The practical effect would be to change scheduling, staffing, and consent procedures in hospitals and training environments, while leaving emergency and urgent care practices unchanged.
Sentiment
The bill’s stated purpose and findings suggest a generally patient-centered and autonomy-focused sentiment, emphasizing comfort, trust, and mental wellbeing. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented opposition or support in the available record beyond the bill’s own framing. The measure appears designed to respond to concerns from patients who prefer direct care from a licensed physician rather than a resident.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be the balance between patient autonomy and medical training needs. Supporters would view the bill as protecting informed consent and patient choice, especially in teaching hospitals, while critics may argue it could complicate resident education, reduce training opportunities, and create scheduling burdens for providers. Another potential issue is whether the requirement to provide a licensed physician in non-emergency situations could be operationally difficult in facilities that rely heavily on residents.