Health Care Services Platforms
SB 228 creates a new regulatory framework for “health care services platforms,” meaning electronic systems or apps that connect health care workers with shifts at health care facilities. Beginning January 1, 2026, a platform may not operate in Utah unless it is registered with the Division of Occupational Licensing. The division must build the registration system by September 1, 2025, review applications within 30 days, collect fees, and adopt rules to administer the program.
The bill requires registered platforms to keep records showing that workers offered shifts meet applicable state and federal licensing, training, continuing education, and background-check requirements, and that the platform maintains general liability or professional liability insurance. It also prohibits platforms from requiring non-compete agreements, charging workers or facilities a fee tied to a worker accepting employment elsewhere, or restricting a worker from using another platform or taking direct employment with a provider or facility. The division may deny, condition, suspend, or revoke registrations for noncompliance.
The bill adds a new chapter to Utah Code Title 58 and gives the Division of Occupational Licensing authority over health care services platforms. It establishes registration, fee-setting, rulemaking, recordkeeping, and enforcement powers for the division, while imposing operational limits on platform business practices. The law affects platform operators, health care workers who use gig-style shift marketplaces, and health care facilities that rely on those platforms to fill staffing needs.
The available voting history shows strong and unanimous support throughout the legislative process, with favorable recommendations in both chambers and no recorded dissenting votes on the floor. That suggests the bill was broadly viewed as a practical staffing and consumer-protection measure rather than a controversial policy change. No committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate significant opposition.
No major contention is evident in the available record. The main policy choices are the registration requirement, the fee cap, and the restrictions on platform practices such as non-competes, placement-related fees, and limits on worker mobility. If any concern existed, it would likely have centered on balancing workforce flexibility and platform business models against oversight, worker protections, and verification of qualifications, but the unanimous votes suggest those issues did not generate visible opposition.