DPOR and DHP; certain suspensions not considered disciplinary action.
The proposed changes under HB 120 aim to streamline the process concerning the handling of fee-related suspensions. The bill affects existing laws related to regulatory practices for professionals, as it establishes a clear framework for responding to payment failures without labeling the suspension as a disciplinary issue. This can mitigate the negative implications of a disciplinary record for professionals subjected to such suspensions, potentially making it easier for individuals to maintain their credentials and continue working in their fields.
House Bill 120 addresses the suspension of licenses, certificates, registrations, permits, or authorities issued by the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation and the Department of Health Professions in cases of dishonored fee payments. Specifically, the bill amends the Code of Virginia to clarify that when a payment for such fees is not honored, a suspension may be enacted, effective ten days after notice is given. Importantly, these suspensions will not be classified as disciplinary actions, which is significant for affected individuals seeking to maintain a clean professional record.
The sentiment around HB 120 appears to be positive, particularly among professionals who worry that disciplinary actions can adversely impact their careers and reputations. By removing the stigma associated with suspensions due to non-payment, proponents argue that the bill could lead to better compliance with payment requirements. However, there may also be concerns regarding the implications for regulatory rigor, as some may view it as downplaying the seriousness of compliance with fee obligations.
While overall support for HB 120 seems strong, it raises questions about the balance between ensuring accountability and protecting professionals. Critics may argue that framing a suspension as non-disciplinary could lead to a lack of consequences for repeated failures to meet payment obligations. This bill emphasizes the need for continued regulatory oversight while attempting to alleviate undue penalties for payment-related issues, positioning itself in the ongoing discussion about fair treatment in professional licensing.