Members of VOTA are very excited for the implementation of this regulatory change, as we hear from many about the barriers to maintaining an active license (specifically the "active practice" requirements) and barriers to licensure reinstatement in situations where the lapse has occurred because they were not engaging in the required amount of active practice. This being said, we have a specific concern about the regulations as written. 

 

The section 18VAC85-80-72 Inactive licensure seems to allow for an accessible pathway for individuals whose licenses are categorized as "inactive" by focusing on ensuring they have the necessary amount of CE. NBCOT certification is only required if the license has been lapsed for more than 6 years.

 

18VAC85-80-80 Reinstatement which is designated for licenses categorized as "lapsed" has different requirements that could prove to be a significant barrier. NBCOT certification is required if the license has been lapsed for more than two years rather than 6 years, as is required for inactive license. 

 

I am not sure I am understanding why these pathways to resuming active licensure are so different in terms of timeline and requirements when there does not seem to be a significant difference in who would be categorized as lapsed vs inactive other than the individual proactively identifying and notifying the board in advance of their intention not to engage is active practice for inactive and lapsed not proactively notifying.

 

The proposed reinstatement section also specifies: "C. An applicant for reinstatement shall meet the continuing competency requirements of 18VAC85-80-71 for the number of years the license has been lapsed, not to exceed four six years." But unlike the inactive licensure section, which states "C. An occupational therapist or occupational therapy assistant who has had an inactive license for six years or more and who has not engaged in active practice, as defined in 18VAC85-80-10, shall serve a board-approved practice of 320 hours to be completed in four consecutive months under the supervision of a licensed occupational therapist provide evidence of current certification by NBCOT or retake and pass the national examination." I do not see where the reinstatement section outlines the pathway for someone whose license has been lapsed for more than 6 years. I believe it is important for this to be outlined as, regardless of how long someone's license has been inactive or lapsed, they do require guidance and a pathway for returning to an active license.

 

In general, I think it would be helpful to understand why NBCOT certification has been identified as the important indicator of a person being qualified to begin practicing again, as NBCOT's requirements are primarily professional development activities which Virginia regulations could specify independently. I believe it might be due to the self-assessment component the specific competency assessment unit activities. A statement from the advisory board about this would be helpful to practitioners, as we have heard from practitioners who have intentionally let their NBCOT membership lapse for specific reasons and the NBCOT requirement for renewal will be a barrier to their ability to reinstate.

 

I am very grateful that the requirement of supervised hours in order to reactivate or reinstate a license is being removed, this was a significant barrier to practitioners in Virginia. In this important regulatory change, I want to ensure feasible pathways are being established in place of the existing regulations.