Health care; prohibiting health care staffing agency from charging certain excess fee; making agency liable for certain violation. Effective date.
Summary
SB 668 creates a new section of Oklahoma law governing health care staffing agencies that place temporary nurses and other direct-care clinical staff in hospitals, nursing facilities, and specialized facilities. The bill defines “covered facility,” “health care staffing agency,” and “health care worker,” and then limits the fee a staffing agency may charge when it places a worker who had previously been employed by that same facility within the prior two years.
Under the bill, the agency’s fee, when converted to an hourly wage, may not exceed 105% of the highest hourly wage the facility previously paid that worker. The measure also allows a covered facility to sue a staffing agency for violating the cap, but only after giving notice and providing detailed payroll records and only if the agency fails to promptly correct the issue. A prevailing plaintiff may recover actual damages, punitive damages, court costs, attorney fees, injunctive relief, and other appropriate relief. The act would take effect November 1, 2025.
Impact
SB 668 would add a new statutory restriction to Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes affecting the business practices of health care staffing agencies and the contracting flexibility of hospitals and nursing facilities. It would create a private right of action for covered facilities, expose agencies to damages and injunctive relief, and effectively regulate the pricing of temporary staffing placements for certain returning workers.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears aimed at addressing concerns about staffing costs and wage inflation in health care facilities, while also signaling a willingness to impose legal penalties on agencies that exceed the fee cap.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the fee limitation itself: health care staffing agencies may view the 105% cap as an intrusion into market pricing and a constraint on their ability to cover recruitment and placement costs, while hospitals and nursing facilities may support it as a way to curb excessive staffing expenses. Another likely issue is the enforcement mechanism, since the bill requires facilities to provide detailed employee pay records before suing and authorizes punitive damages and attorney fees, which could be seen as either a strong deterrent or an aggressive litigation tool depending on the stakeholder.