To amend sections 4111.03, 4111.14, 4113.15, 4121.01, 4123.01, 4141.01, and 5747.01 and to enact section 4113.87 of the Revised Code to specify that a health care worker is not the employee of a health care worker platform or health care facility for purposes of specified laws under certain circumstances.
HB277 would create a new statutory framework in Ohio law for certain health care workers who obtain shifts through a health care worker platform. The bill defines “health care worker,” “health care worker platform,” and “health care facility,” and provides that, when specified conditions are met, a health care worker is not considered an employee of the platform or facility for purposes of overtime, minimum wage, wage payment timing, workers’ compensation, unemployment compensation, and state income tax withholding provisions. The bill requires an agreement stating independent contractor status and includes a list of conditions intended to preserve worker autonomy, such as the ability to accept or reject shifts, set or agree to pay rates, work for other entities, avoid noncompete restrictions, and control the means and methods of work.
In addition to the new health care worker section, HB277 amends several existing Revised Code sections to add cross-references and exclusions for these workers. It also makes parallel changes to the definitions of “employee” and “employer” in wage, workers’ compensation, unemployment, and tax statutes, and it preserves existing independent-contractor style exclusions for certain motor carriers and franchisors. The bill would therefore affect not only labor and employment law, but also payroll, tax withholding, and benefit eligibility rules tied to employee status under Ohio law.
The bill’s practical impact would be to reduce the likelihood that health care workers booked through qualifying platforms are treated as employees for the covered state laws, shifting them toward independent contractor treatment in those contexts. That would generally mean fewer employer obligations for platforms and facilities, including overtime pay, unemployment contributions, workers’ compensation coverage, and certain payroll/tax reporting duties, while leaving the workers responsible for their own taxes on earnings from platform-booked work. The bill is narrowly tailored to work booked through a platform and does not appear to change the status of all health care workers generally.
Because the bill was only introduced and had no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials, there is no formal legislative sentiment reflected in the record beyond its sponsorship and referral to the House Commerce and Labor Committee. The bill’s structure suggests support for flexible staffing arrangements in health care, but the absence of hearings or votes means there is no documented public debate in the supplied context.
The main point of contention likely concerns worker classification. Supporters would likely view the bill as clarifying independent contractor status and preserving scheduling flexibility for health care staffing platforms, while critics may argue it narrows labor protections and could reduce access to wage, unemployment, and workers’ compensation protections for affected workers. Another likely issue is whether the bill’s conditions are sufficient to ensure genuine independence, or whether they simply reclassify workers to avoid employer obligations.
HB277 would amend Ohio’s wage, minimum wage, payroll, workers’ compensation, unemployment compensation, and income tax statutes to exclude certain health care workers booked through a health care worker platform from the definition of employee, when the bill’s conditions are met. It would also add a new section, R.C. 4113.87, establishing the criteria for that exclusion and requiring related cross-references throughout the Revised Code. The bill would therefore alter how these workers are treated under multiple state regulatory schemes and would reduce platform and facility obligations tied to employee status.
The provided record shows no committee testimony and no votes, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to measure. Based on the bill’s text, the measure appears designed to support flexible, app-based health care staffing arrangements and independent contractor treatment, which suggests likely support from proponents of workforce flexibility and staffing innovation. At the same time, the lack of recorded debate means opposition, if any, is not reflected in the supplied materials.
The central controversy is worker classification: whether health care workers who accept shifts through a platform should be treated as independent contractors or employees for purposes of wage, tax, unemployment, and workers’ compensation laws. Supporters are likely to emphasize flexibility, voluntary shift acceptance, and the ability to work for multiple entities, while opponents may focus on the loss of statutory protections and the possibility that the bill could weaken labor standards by excluding workers from employee-based benefits and remedies. A secondary point of contention is whether the bill’s detailed conditions are sufficient to prevent misclassification or whether they create a broad exemption that could be used to avoid employer responsibilities.