AN ACT Relating to protecting the clinical autonomy of audiologists;
SB 6226 is a Washington health-professions bill focused on protecting the clinical autonomy of audiologists, with related language extending to hearing aid specialists and speech-language pathologists. The bill states legislative intent that telehealth is an important and growing way to deliver patient-centered care, but that licensed professionals should retain the ability to decide, based on clinical judgment, whether telehealth or in-person care is the appropriate modality for a given patient.
To carry out that intent, the bill amends the audiology chapter to limit the Board of Hearing and Speech in one key respect: the board may adopt rules on hearing-instrument fitting, dispensing, standards of care, continuing education, consumer protections, and related matters, but it may not adopt rules that prevent licensed professionals from using clinical judgment to choose between telehealth and in-person treatment. The bill also clarifies that the board may still establish and enforce standards of care, competency, supervision, documentation, equipment calibration, disclosures, evidence-based safety procedures, and referral/follow-up requirements, so long as those rules do not eliminate professional discretion over treatment modality.
The bill amends RCW provisions governing the Board of Hearing and Speech and the practice of audiology, and it creates a new section expressing legislative intent regarding telehealth. Its practical effect is to preserve professional discretion for audiologists and related licensed practitioners when deciding whether a patient should be seen remotely or face-to-face, while leaving intact the board’s authority to regulate licensure, discipline, standards of care, and consumer protections. It primarily affects audiologists, hearing aid specialists, speech-language pathologists, the board that regulates them, and patients receiving hearing and communication-related services.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial in the legislative process. It passed the Senate committee unanimously, cleared the Senate and House with overwhelming margins, and was ultimately enacted with only two no votes on House final passage. The vote pattern suggests general agreement with the bill’s goal of preserving clinical judgment and supporting telehealth access in audiology-related care.
The main policy tension in the bill is between professional autonomy and regulatory oversight. Supporters emphasize that licensed clinicians should decide whether telehealth or in-person care best serves a patient, especially as telehealth becomes more common. The bill also reflects concern that rules should not create different practice standards for telehealth versus in-person services. At the same time, the legislation preserves the board’s authority to set standards and consumer protections, indicating that any contention was likely centered on how far the board could go in regulating modality-specific practice without interfering with clinical judgment.