HB 2618
In CommitteeHouse
Audiologist autonomy
Protecting the clinical autonomy of audiologists.
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 protects audiologists’ right to use their clinical judgment in choosing whether to provide care via telehealth or in-person, emphasizing that regulations should apply equally across care settings. It updates state law to ensure standards do not unfairly restrict telehealth use and reinforces that the appropriate modality should be determined by the clinician based on patient needs.
- Affirms that telehealth (including teleaudiology) is a legitimate and growing method for delivering care, and should not be subject to different or stricter rules than in-person care.
- Requires the Audiology Board to apply standards consistently across telehealth and in-person settings, without infringing on clinicians’ clinical judgment.
- Clarifies that clinical autonomy—the right of audiologists to decide the best care modality for each patient—is a core principle guiding regulation.
- Directs the board to adopt rules that respect practitioners’ ability to choose the most appropriate treatment method (e.g., telehealth vs. in-person) while meeting standards of care.
- Expands the board’s rulemaking authority to ensure standards do not restrict modality choice or undermine professional judgment.
Who is affected
- Audiologists — Audiologists gain clearer legal protection to use their professional judgment in deciding whether telehealth or in-person care is appropriate for individual patients, without being forced into rigid modality-specific rules.
- Patients receiving audiology services — Patients—especially those in rural areas, with mobility challenges, or seeking timely care—may benefit from expanded access to teleaudiology services and more consistent, clinician-led care decisions.
- State health agencies — The Washington State Department of Health and the Health Care Authority may need to update policies or guidance to align with the new emphasis on modality-agnostic standards and clinician autonomy.
- Other licensed health professionals in hearing and communication sciences — Hearing aid specialists and speech-language pathologists may benefit indirectly from the broader principle of protecting clinical autonomy across allied health professions.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Patients—particularly those in rural, low-income, or mobility-limited populations—gain more consistent access to audiologic care through telehealth, reducing travel burdens and wait times, and enabling earlier intervention for hearing loss, which is associated with better long-term health outcomes.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(2); Sec. 2(1), (9)Audiologists gain clearer legal protection to practice based on individual patient needs rather than arbitrary modality restrictions, reducing legal risk and enabling patient-centered care decisions—this is especially beneficial for clinicians in safety-net clinics or community health centers serving vulnerable populations.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(4); Sec. 2(9)By requiring consistent standards across care modalities, the bill prevents discriminatory or burdensome telehealth-specific rules that could otherwise deter providers from offering teleaudiology—supporting more efficient use of clinician time and reducing avoidable delays in care.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(1); Sec. 2(1)The bill reinforces that standards of care should be outcome-based rather than modality-prescriptive, aligning Washington with federal telehealth best practices (e.g., VA, HHS) and supporting innovation in hearing healthcare delivery without compromising quality.
HealthcareLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(3); Sec. 2(9)By affirming telehealth as a legitimate care modality, the bill may reduce stigma or skepticism among patients and other providers, encouraging broader adoption of teleaudiology and supporting integrated, team-based care models that improve access and continuity.
HealthcareLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2); Sec. 2(9)
Potential Concerns (3)
The bill’s emphasis on modality-agnostic standards may reduce oversight consistency if the Audiology Board lacks clear guidance or resources to enforce uniform standards across telehealth and in-person settings, potentially leading to variability in care quality or delayed identification of safety issues in remote care.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1(3); Sec. 2(1), (9)While the bill protects clinical autonomy, it does not mandate funding or technical support for audiologists—especially small practices or those in underserved areas—to implement telehealth infrastructure, potentially widening access gaps for patients whose providers lack reliable broadband or equipment.
HealthcareLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(1), (9)The bill’s broad language about “clinical autonomy” could create ambiguity in disciplinary proceedings if the board interprets “infringing on clinical judgment” too broadly, possibly undermining enforcement of clear safety or fraud standards when modality choice conflicts with evidence-based practice.
HealthcareRef: Sec. 1(2); Sec. 2(9)
Who Is Most Affected
Audiologists gain legal clarity and reduced regulatory risk when choosing telehealth, enabling them to serve more patients efficiently—especially beneficial for those in solo practice or rural clinics where broadband access is improving but reimbursement remains uncertain.
Patients in rural, low-income, or mobility-limited groups benefit most from expanded telehealth access; however, those without reliable internet or digital literacy may face new barriers if providers shift to telehealth without accommodations.
The Department of Health and Health Care Authority gain flexibility to align policies with clinician autonomy but face no new funding or staffing mandates—minimal net fiscal impact, though administrative burden may increase slightly during rule adoption.
Speech-language pathologists and hearing aid specialists benefit indirectly from the precedent of protecting clinical autonomy across allied health professions, potentially influencing future regulatory reforms in their fields.
Telehealth infrastructure providers (e.g., broadband companies, EHR vendors) may see increased demand for services supporting audiologists, but the bill does not include funding or incentives to ensure equitable access for small or public clinics.