12VAC35-105-180 Notification of changes

If you do not require a provider to notify the department of an address change, then how will the license specialist know where to do an inspection?  

Also, licenses specifically list bed capacities, and what the program is licensed for, if a provider all of sudden decides to expand their clientele, then how can DBHDS ensure that the provider has the correct license.  License are specific to the populations they serve.  If for instance a provider is providing SA services and decides to work with the ID population and change services completely, then DBHDS would be unaware.  At minimum the provider should have to notify DBHDS of any program description changes because that could deeply effect what type of license the provider needs.  

The notification of changes listed within the current regulations are necessary to ensure safety of the public.  

Also, completely changing the name of the provider without notifying DBHDS would mean someone could not have the correct name on their license, this is not fair to the public, they would not be able to accurately look up a provider's license to see if they are licensed or complain, this would not be protecting the public.  

1. Timeliness of Corrective Action Plan (12VAC35-105-170)
Suggested Addition:
The proposed language outlines provider responsibilities and timelines for submitting corrective action plans but does not include a timeline for DBHDS Office of Licensure (OL) to respond with approval or disapproval. To promote transparency and operational planning, it is recommended that a timeframe be added requiring OL to respond within 15 business days following the provider's submission. Many providers experience delays exceeding two months, which hampers timely quality improvement.

Proposed Addition:
“Upon receipt of the provider’s corrective action plan, the department shall provide written approval or disapproval within 15 business days.”

2. Cross-reference to 12VAC5-421 – Food Service Supervision (12VAC35-105-290)
Concern:
The change referencing 12VAC5-421 may unintentionally increase regulatory burden. Specifically, Part II, Article 1 of 12VAC5-421 addresses certification requirements for food service managers and supervisors. This section may not be applicable to smaller licensed programs and could create unnecessary hardship.

Suggestion:
Revert to previous language or clarify which specific sections of 12VAC5-421 providers are expected to comply with. Alternatively, explicitly state that the requirement only applies to facilities subject to local health department food service inspections.

3. Criminal Background Checks – Employees Hired Prior to July 1, 1999 (12VAC35-105-400)
Concern:
The proposed language references background check requirements for individuals hired after July 1, 1999. However, it does not address expectations for staff hired before this date who have remained continuously employed. Clarification is needed.

Suggestion:
Maintain reference to July 1, 1999, and explicitly state whether staff employed prior to that date who have remained with the same employer are exempt or if retrospective checks are now expected.

4. Repeal of 12VAC35-105-920 – Review Process for Records
Concern:
The repeal of this section removes the explicit requirement for providers to implement a formal review process of records for completeness, accuracy, and timeliness. This process supports quality assurance and compliance, especially for documentation audits.

Question:
If 12VAC35-105-920 is repealed, where is the requirement for routine internal record review now addressed? If it is being incorporated elsewhere (e.g., in quality improvement or record management sections), this should be clarified to avoid confusion and unintentional compliance gaps.