SSB 6226
SignedSenate
Audiologist autonomy
Protecting the clinical autonomy of audiologists.
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’ legal right to decide whether a patient needs in-person or telehealth services, and requires state regulators to apply the same standards of care regardless of how care is delivered. It ensures that telehealth is treated equally under the law, not as a separate or lesser form of practice.
- Declares telehealth—including teleaudiology—a legitimate and growing method of delivering care, and affirms that clinical decisions about modality (in-person vs. telehealth) should be made by licensed professionals, not regulators.
- Requires the Audiologist Board to establish rules for fitting and dispensing hearing instruments that apply consistently across all care modalities and do not infringe on practitioners’ clinical autonomy.
- Mandates that standards of care for audiologists, hearing aid specialists, and speech-language pathologists must respect professionals’ authority to choose the most appropriate treatment method or modality for each patient.
- Clarifies that regulation of health services should be modality-agnostic—meaning the same standards apply regardless of whether care is delivered in person or via telehealth.
Who is affected
- Audiologists — Audiologists gain clearer legal protection to make clinical decisions about whether patients need in-person or telehealth services, without regulatory interference that treats telehealth differently from in-person care.
- Patients seeking hearing or communication-related care — Patients may gain improved access to care, especially in rural or underserved areas, through expanded use of telehealth (including teleaudiology) while maintaining the same quality and safety standards.
- State regulatory agencies — The Washington State Department of Health and the Department of Licensing (through the Audiologist Board) must ensure regulations do not impose different standards based on service delivery modality.
- Related health professionals (hearing aid specialists, speech-language pathologists) — Hearing aid specialists and speech-language pathologists benefit from consistent, modality-agnostic standards that support professional autonomy across related disciplines.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (4)
By affirming audiologists’ authority to choose telehealth when clinically appropriate, the bill removes regulatory barriers that previously discouraged remote care—likely increasing access for rural, low-income, elderly, and mobility-limited patients who face transportation and time constraints.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), Sec. 2(9)The requirement that standards of care be applied consistently across modalities prevents regulators from imposing burdensome, modality-specific rules (e.g., requiring in-person fitting for hearing instruments only), which could have restricted service availability and increased costs for patients.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), Sec. 2(1), (9)The bill supports integration of telehealth into professional practice standards, which may encourage training programs to expand telehealth competencies—preparing future audiologists and related professionals to serve diverse populations more effectively.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), Sec. 2(9)By legally mandating modality-agnostic standards, the bill prevents discriminatory regulation that could have favored in-person providers (e.g., through extra licensing fees or procedural hurdles for telehealth), thereby leveling the playing field for providers who serve underserved communities.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), Sec. 2(9)
Potential Concerns (3)
The bill removes the ability of regulators to impose modality-specific safety protocols for hearing instrument fitting and dispensing, potentially weakening oversight where telehealth introduces new risks (e.g., inability to perform physical ear exams remotely); however, the bill explicitly requires that standards remain consistent across modalities and uphold the same standard of care, so this risk is mitigated rather than eliminated.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1(4); Sec. 2(1), (9)While the bill supports professional autonomy, it does not mandate reimbursement parity for telehealth services, meaning audiologists may face financial disincentives to offer telehealth if insurers or Medicare do not compensate equally—limiting real-world impact on access despite regulatory support.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 2(1)The bill’s focus on clinical autonomy assumes audiologists will consistently prioritize patient access and quality, but without enforceable performance metrics or oversight for telehealth outcomes, there is no mechanism to ensure standards are upheld uniformly—especially in cases where profit motives may conflict with patient needs.
HealthcareRef: Sec. 1(2), Sec. 2(9)
Who Is Most Affected
Rural and low-income patients benefit significantly: telehealth removes geographic and transportation barriers to hearing care, especially for elderly or disabled individuals who may struggle to travel to clinics. The bill directly enables this access by protecting clinical discretion to use telehealth when appropriate.
Audiologists gain stronger legal protection for clinical decisions and reduced regulatory uncertainty, especially in ambiguous areas like hearing instrument fitting. However, they still operate under existing reimbursement and infrastructure constraints that may limit telehealth adoption despite regulatory freedom.
Hearing aid specialists and speech-language pathologists benefit from consistent, profession-wide standards that support their clinical autonomy—reducing the risk of disparate regulation across related disciplines. However, the bill’s primary focus is on audiologists, so ancillary benefits are secondary.
State regulatory agencies (DOL/Audiologist Board, DOH) gain clearer legislative direction to avoid modality-based discrimination in rulemaking, reducing legal exposure and streamlining regulatory consistency. This reduces administrative burden but does not increase funding or staffing.
Insurance companies and large health systems may face modest pressure to expand telehealth coverage, but since the bill does not mandate reimbursement parity, their financial impact is minimal. The main effect is reduced regulatory friction, not cost shifts.