In or about September 2021, I was involved in a single incident that later resulted in a conviction for assault and battery. The incident did not involve a weapon, did not result in serious bodily injury, and has not been followed by any subsequent incidents of criminal or violent conduct. My case proceeded through the Richmond City Behavioral Health Docket, a specialty docket designed to address underlying behavioral health concerns and promote rehabilitation rather than punitive outcomes alone. Due to the nature of that docket, court congestion, and compliance with treatment-oriented conditions, the case remained pending for an extended period. As a result, although the underlying conduct occurred in September 2021, my final conviction was not entered until 2023. Since the September 2021 incident, I have: - Remained arrest-free and incident-free; - Fully complied with all court-ordered requirements; Engaged in treatment and recovery-oriented services; Received certification as a Peer Recovery Specialist; and - Sought lawful employment within the behavioral health field. Measured from the date of the incident, the relevant date for assessing public-safety risk, I have now demonstrated four full years of good behavior. - Application of the Barrier Crime Statute DBHDS applies the barrier crime statute by measuring the four-year “good behavior” period from the date of conviction, rather than from the date of the underlying conduct, without any individualized assessment and without accounting for court-caused delay. As applied to me, this interpretation: - Extends the employment exclusion beyond four years of actual good behavior; - Penalizes participation in a behavioral health specialty docket; - Converts administrative delay into an additional civil sanction; - Bears no rational relationship to present fitness or public safety. Two individuals who engaged in identical conduct on the same date may face materially different exclusion periods based solely on how long the court system took to resolve their cases, a result that is arbitrary and constitutionally suspect. As applied, DBHDS’s enforcement of the statute raises serious concerns under the Fourteenth Amendment, including: 1. Substantive Due Process The automatic extension of a civil employment exclusion based solely on conviction date, rather than time since the conduct, irrationally burdens my liberty interest in pursuing lawful employment and is not rationally related to public safety. 2. Equal Protection The conviction date rule creates arbitrary distinctions between similarly situated individuals and penalizes those whose cases were delayed due to court-imposed or rehabilitative processes beyond their control. These time-based employment exclusions lack individualized assessment and fail to account for rehabilitation, particularly in the context of behavioral health and workforce reintegration. On December 8, 2025, after a rigorous hiring process, I was hired with Chesterfield County Mental Health as a Certified Peer Recovery Specialist on the Assertive Community Treatment team. Our team lead, department manager and Director all agreed on my fitness for the role. After being employed for 30 days, I was terminated due to the DBHDS barrier crimes statute.

Comments Document

Attached please find the testimony of the U.S. Department of War regarding HB 574, the Athletic Trainer compact, and HB 575, the Respiratory Care Interstate Compact.

Comments Document

Attached please find the testimony of the U.S. Department of War regarding the policies reflected in House Bill 574, the Interstate Massage Therapy Compact.

I encourage passage of each of the above bills. These are all improvements for the residents of our state ,in safety , legal protection and personal freedom and responsibility.

Comments Document

Attached please find the testimony of the U.S. Department of War regarding HB 574, the Athletic Trainer compact, and HB 575, the Respiratory Care Interstate Compact.

Comments Document

Testimony in support of HB 579 from the American Massage Therapy Association

Comments Document

Testimony in support of HB 579 from the American Massage Therapy Association

Comments Document

Attached please find the testimony of the United States Department of War regarding House Bill 579.

Comments Document

HB 579 – Opposition Summary Position: The Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards (FSMTB) opposes HB 579 and urges the Subcommittee not to advance the bill this session. Context: Virginia has already enacted the Interstate Massage Compact (IMpact), a regulator-led compact developed through a multi-year national process and now approaching the threshold needed to form the Compact Commission and begin implementation. Key Concerns with HB 579: Reopens and alters compact statute before the Compact Commission is formed, bypassing the agreed governance structure. Makes substantive policy changes that are inaccurately characterized as technical amendments. Risks creating multiple versions of the Compact, delaying implementation and undermining interstate licensure portability. Weakens uniform public protection safeguards, including those critical to addressing illicit massage businesses and human trafficking. Removes regulatory issues that are more appropriately addressed through Commission rulemaking, not statute. Public Protection Impact: Massage therapy regulation intersects directly with anti–human trafficking enforcement. Fragmented or weakened standards increase risks related to licensure fraud, regulatory evasion, and public harm. Professional Support: FSMTB survey data from over 1,700 verified massage therapists shows 98% support for the original IMpact language, including strong support among Virginia licensees and members of national professional associations. Recommendation: Allow IMpact to proceed as enacted, enable formation of the Compact Commission, and address any future refinements through the established compact governance and rulemaking process.

Comments Document

I am the Executive Director of Healwell, an Arlington-based 501c3 that works to create sustainable careers for massage therapists in healthcare settings through research, education and service (since 2009). Our team of 20 massage therapists works at Inova Fairfax/Schar Cancer Institute, Goodwin House/Goodwin Living, in homes throughout the DMV with home hospice and palliative care programs, with Georgetown University Medical Center, Children’s National Hospital and Johns Hopkins Howard County. The expense and logistics of maintaining multiple licenses for our team has been a challenge for the 17 years we have existed. The progress that has been made toward the establishment of an interstate compact signals a game change for us. We have read and fully support the original language and also the momentum that it represents for other states who are primed to ratify it this session. Changing the language to allow less-qualified therapists to transfer their licenses and shifting the structure of the commission is both unwelcome and unnecessary. Healwell opposes S.282 and respectfully requests that it not advance this session. Our key concerns about this proposal are shared below: • It was not requested by regulators or the profession These amendments were not sought by state regulatory boards or by massage therapists. • Undermines a regulator-led compact process IMpact was developed through a multi-year, regulator-led effort and is now only two states away from forming the Compact Commission. The massage therapy profession cannot wait for years more while this process begins again with new language that attempts to circumvent the rulemaking process. • Creates competing compacts and delays implementation Advancing these amendments would result in two competing compacts, delay multistate licensure, and create “compact islands” that limit practitioner mobility, perhaps more than is already the case. • Raises public protection and human trafficking concerns Certain provisions weaken uniform education and licensure standards, increasing vulnerability to exploitation by illicit massage businesses and human trafficking networks. • Lacks professional support A national IMpact survey of 1,715 professionals shows 98% support for the original IMpact language, including 97% of AMTA members and 98% of Virginia respondents. I am hopeful that legislators will not permit S.282 to advance in this session. The remaining specifics about the compact can and should be allowed to be addressed through Commission rulemaking rather than statutory reopening. I welcome the opportunity to speak with you directly and answer any questions you may have. Thank you again for your leadership and for your continued consideration.

Dear Delegate Wachsmann and Health and Human Services Committe members, I hope this message finds you well. My name is Dr. Lauren Grawert, and I am an addiction psychiatrist practicing in Northern Virginia in the Arlington Virginia area. I am also a member of the Virginia Society of Addiction Medicine (VASAM) Advocacy Committee and the Medical Society of Virginia (MSV). I am writing to introduce myself and to express VASAM's strong support for HB 712. As an addiction psychiatrist who provides office-based buprenorphine treatment daily, I greatly appreciate the bill’s clarification that a patient’s refusal of counseling should not, in itself, preclude access to medication treatment for opioid use disorder. While therapy is an important component of addiction care, in practice, rigid counseling requirements can unintentionally create barriers to care for some of our most vulnerable patients, and HB 712 reflects a thoughtful, evidence-based approach to improving access to life-saving medication while preserving clinical judgment. Of note, VASAM submitted a formal request to the Virginia Board of Medicine last fall also asking that the counseling requirement be removed. The Board of Medicine responded that it would defer to the state legislation (you) to make this change if warranted. During the public comment period, our request received a total of 172 public comments from Virginians all over the state which were all in staunch support of this change. There were no comments that were against the requested update. Thank you for your leadership on this important issue. HB172 would go a long way in helping Virginia addiction treatment specialists like myself save more lives and combat the opioid epidemic. Warm regards, Lauren Grawert, MD Addiction Psychiatrist Chief Medical Officer, Aware Recovery Care Member, VASAM Advocacy Committee Member, Medical Society of Virginia

The Virginia Association for Home Care and Hospice opposes this bill.

The Virginia Association for Home Care and Hospice opposes this legislation.

My name is Theresa Gaffney, PhD, MPA, RN, CNE. I am a nursing professor and serve as the Commissioner for Nursing Education for the Virginia Nurses Association. I am writing today in strong support of House Bill (HB) 815. Virginia currently lacks a consistent, comprehensive lens through which to understand and plan for its nursing workforce. As a result, the Commonwealth is perpetually in a reactive posture—constantly playing catch-up as workforce gaps deepen. Projections indicate that Virginia will face a shortage of more than 20,000 registered nurses in the coming years, compounded by serious maldistribution challenges, both geographically and across care settings. At the same time, national data show that 30 to 50 percent of newly licensed nurses leave the profession within their first two years. This level of attrition threatens not only workforce stability, but the health and safety of Virginians who rely on timely access to quality care. To meet the healthcare needs of every resident, Virginia must shift from a reactive approach to a proactive, data-driven strategy—one that aligns nursing education capacity with workforce demand. The Nursing Workforce Center established in HB 815 provides exactly that: a centralized hub to collect, analyze, and act on workforce data. This infrastructure is essential to building and sustaining a stable, well-prepared, and resilient nursing workforce. For these reasons, I respectfully urge your support of House Bill 815. Thank you for your time and consideration.