11/25/2019 9:26 am
Date / Time filed with the Register of Regulations 		VA.R. Document Number: R____-______
Virginia Register Publication Information

Transmittal Sheet: Response to Petition for Rulemaking
Initial Agency Notice
X
Agency Decision
Promulgating Board: Board of Counseling
Regulatory Coordinator: Elaine J. Yeatts

(804)367-4688

elaine.yeatts@dhp.virginia.gov
Agency Contact: Jaime Hoyle

Executive Director

(804)367-4406

jaime.hoyle@dhp.virginia.gov
Contact Address: Department of Health Professions

9960 Mayland Drive

Suite 300

Richmond, VA 23233
Chapter Affected:
18 vac 115 - 20: Regulations Governing the Practice of Professional Counseling
Statutory Authority: State: Chapter 35 of Title 54.1

Federal:
Date Petition Received 09/10/2019
Petitioner Rev. Steven Giddens
 Petitioner's Request
To amend 18VAC115-20-52 to eliminate the restriction on residents\\\' ability to directly bill for their services
 Agency Plan
In accordance with Virginia law, the petition will be filed with the Register of Regulations and published on September 30, 2019 with comment requested until October 25, 2019.  It will also be placed on the Virginia Regulatory Townhall and available for comments to be posted electronically.   At its first meeting following the close of comment, which is scheduled for November 1, 2019, the Board will consider the request to amend regulations and all comment received in support or opposition.  The Board will inform the petitioner of the its response and any action it approves.    
Publication Date 09/30/2019  (comment period will also begin on this date)
Comment End Date 10/25/2019
 Agency Decision
Take no action
Agency Response Date 11/25/2019
 Agency Decision Text
In accordance with Virginia law, the petition was filed with the Register of Regulations and published on September 30, 2019 with comment requested until October 25, 2019.  The petition and all comment received in support or opposition were reviewed at the Board meeting on November 25, 2019.  The Board decided to take no action based on its concern that direct billing by residents is contrary to the reimbursement policy of DMAS and other third party payors, and that it might incentivize residents to engage in independent practice without appropriate supervision.