HB 1242
In CommitteeHouse
Prof. licensing reporting
Expanding professional licensing reporting requirements.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill requires the Department of Licensing to conduct comprehensive, periodic reviews of all professional licenses in Washington, starting in 2024, to assess whether each license is still necessary and whether it should be continued, modified, or eliminated. The reviews must include detailed data on costs, board operations, disciplinary actions, and alternatives to licensing — with a focus on using the least restrictive regulation needed to protect the public.
- Starting in 2024, the Department of Licensing must annually review about 10% of professional licenses under its authority, completing a full review of all licenses within 10 years and every 10 years thereafter.
- Each annual report must include detailed analysis such as: license purpose, board structure and meetings, five-year budget breakdowns, renewal frequency and cost analysis, disciplinary actions, and comparisons with other states.
- For professions earning less than 125% of the statewide minimum wage, the report must include options to reduce license renewal fees.
- If further analysis is needed, the legislature may request an extended report evaluating whether the license is the least restrictive way to protect the public — and if so, what alternative regulatory methods (e.g., bonding, insurance, inspections) might be used instead.
- The department must recommend whether each license should be continued, modified, or terminated, based on whether it meets public health, safety, and welfare goals using the least restrictive means possible.
Who is affected
- Professional licensees — Professional licensees across many fields (e.g., cosmetologists, contractors, real estate agents) will be subject to periodic state reviews of their licensing requirements and may see changes in fees, renewal periods, or continued licensing status.
- Professional boards and commissions — Professional boards and commissions that oversee specific licensed professions will be required to provide data and may see changes to their structure, meeting frequency, or authority based on review findings.
- Washington State Legislature — State legislators will receive annual reports and may use them to decide whether to keep, modify, or eliminate certain professional licenses.
- General public — State residents who use services from licensed professionals may benefit from improved oversight, lower fees for lower-wage professions, or clearer standards on licensing necessity and cost.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Requiring fee-reduction options for low-wage professions (e.g., cosmetologists, barbers, nail technicians, home health aides) directly reduces financial barriers to entry and retention in licensed work — especially beneficial for women, immigrants, and people of color who are overrepresented in these fields and often earn near minimum wage.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(g)Mandating that alternative regulatory tools (bonding, insurance, inspections, disclosures) be evaluated before licensing creates a strong, evidence-based presumption against overregulation — improving proportionality and reducing unnecessary barriers to entry while preserving public protection where licensing is truly needed.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)(i)-(vii)Requiring analysis of education, training, and experience requirements — and whether they are the least restrictive means — may reduce arbitrary or outdated training mandates (e.g., excessive hours for cosmetology), lowering time and cost burdens for aspiring workers while still ensuring competency.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(j)Mandating comparisons with other states and analysis of disciplinary trends improves transparency and accountability, helping identify states with better regulatory models — potentially leading to smarter, more effective licensing standards that protect consumers without overreach.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(l)Requiring five-year budget breakdowns (e.g., per-activity costs for complaints, discipline, rulemaking) creates a transparent audit trail of how licensing fees are spent — empowering the public and legislature to ensure fees are not misallocated or used to over-regulate.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(f)
Potential Concerns (4)
Mandating fee-reduction options for professions earning less than 125% of the statewide minimum wage may reduce revenue for state-regulated boards and the Department of Licensing, potentially leading to underfunded oversight — especially for lower-wage professions that already face tight margins. This could weaken enforcement capacity where public protection is most vulnerable.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(g)Requiring five-year budget breakdowns and operational data from professional boards (many of which are funded by license fees, not state appropriations) may impose administrative burdens on small boards with limited staff, potentially diverting resources from core regulatory functions.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(f)The bill’s “least restrictive regulation” framework, while well-intentioned, risks under-regulating high-risk professions (e.g., cosmetology, nail technicians, massage therapists) if cost or administrative burden outweighs public safety analysis — particularly where harms are diffuse but potentially severe (e.g., infections, sexual abuse, structural failures).
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)(vii)Mandating cost analyses for shifting from annual to biennial license renewals could delay or prevent fee reductions for lower-wage workers, as departments may conclude administrative savings are insufficient to offset revenue loss — especially if staffing or IT systems aren’t optimized for longer cycles.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(h)
Who Is Most Affected
Low-wage professionals (e.g., cosmetologists, nail technicians, home health aides) benefit significantly from fee-reduction options and reduced training barriers, improving access to licensure and reducing financial strain. However, if licensing is eliminated or weakened without adequate alternatives, they may face increased liability or consumer distrust.
Professional boards with limited staff and funding may struggle to produce the required five-year budget and operational data, especially smaller boards overseeing niche professions. However, those with strong data systems may benefit from streamlined oversight and reduced political pressure if licensing is deemed unnecessary.
Consumers benefit from more proportionate regulation — avoiding both under-protection (e.g., in high-risk fields) and over-regulation (e.g., unnecessary training hours). However, if fee reductions lead to underfunded enforcement, consumer protection may weaken in low-wage sectors.
State legislators gain a structured, data-driven tool to evaluate licensing necessity — reducing reliance on anecdotal or industry-driven lobbying. However, the annual reporting burden may strain legislative committee resources, especially if many professions require follow-up analysis.
The Department of Licensing gains new authority to evaluate and recommend licensing changes, potentially increasing its influence over regulatory policy. However, it must absorb added administrative costs without new funding, and may face legal or political pushback if it recommends eliminating popular licenses.