SB 6356
In CommitteeSenate
Primary care preceptorships
Using preceptorships to train primary care physicians.
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 Health Care Authority Board to study and report on the cost of primary care preceptorships—hands-on clinical training where medical students learn from experienced providers—to help increase the number of primary care doctors, especially in rural and underserved parts of Washington. It also keeps existing reporting on primary care spending in place.
- Amends RCW 70.390.080 to require the Health Care Authority Board to study and report on the cost of primary care preceptorships for hospitals and other clinical training sites.
- Requires the board to report its findings to the governor and legislature by December 1, 2027, including how preceptorships can help address the shortage of primary care providers in rural and underserved areas.
- Maintains existing reporting requirements on primary care expenditures, including tracking progress toward making 12% of total health care spending go toward primary care.
- Directs the board to consult with primary care providers, universities, and other experts in developing its analysis and recommendations.
- Includes legislative findings emphasizing the importance of primary care, the need to reduce medical student debt, and the value of preceptorships in expanding the provider workforce.
Who is affected
- Medical students and residents in primary care — Medical students and residents training in primary care may benefit from reduced training costs and increased access to clinical training opportunities, especially in rural or underserved areas.
- Hospitals and clinical training sites — Hospitals and clinical training sites may receive state support or guidance to expand or sustain preceptorship programs, potentially reducing their per-trainee costs.
- Residents of rural and underserved areas — Residents of rural and underserved communities may gain improved access to primary care providers as the bill aims to increase the number of physicians trained in those areas.
- State agencies (e.g., Health Care Authority, Board of Health) — State agencies and health boards will be responsible for tracking, reporting, and making recommendations on primary care spending and training programs.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (4)
By requiring analysis of preceptorship costs and how to reduce them, the bill could lower training barriers for medical students—especially those from low-income backgrounds—making primary care residencies more financially accessible and increasing the likelihood they’ll practice in underserved areas.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(3), Sec. 2(5), RCW 70.390.080(5)The bill directly targets the primary care shortage in rural and underserved communities by mandating a report on how preceptorships can expand the provider pipeline—this could lead to future legislation or funding that improves long-term access to care for vulnerable populations.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), Sec. 2(5), RCW 70.390.080(5)The requirement to study preceptorship costs may uncover cost-saving models (e.g., shared faculty, virtual training) that reduce medical education expenses for students and institutions, potentially increasing enrollment in primary care tracks.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5), RCW 70.390.080(5)By directing consultation with universities, providers, and experts—including the University of Washington’s Center for Health Workforce Studies—the bill builds on evidence-based workforce planning, increasing the likelihood that findings will translate into actionable, equitable policy.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 2(5), RCW 70.390.080(5)
Potential Concerns (3)
The bill mandates a new reporting requirement (by December 1, 2027) on preceptorship costs without specifying funding or enforcement mechanisms, potentially diverting state agency resources toward administrative tasks rather than direct service delivery—though no direct harm to public safety is likely, the opportunity cost could weaken timely response capacity in health emergencies.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 2(5), RCW 70.390.080(5)While the bill does not impose unfunded mandates on local governments, it creates an expectation that local clinical training sites (e.g., rural clinics, community health centers) will participate in data collection and consultation, which may strain already limited administrative staff at small facilities.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(5), RCW 70.390.080(5)The bill does not provide direct financial support for preceptorship programs, so hospitals and clinics hosting medical students may face increased operational costs without reimbursement, potentially discouraging participation—especially in financially strained rural facilities.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 2(5), RCW 70.390.080(5)
Who Is Most Affected
Medical students and residents—especially those seeking primary care careers—may benefit from reduced training debt and increased access to clinical rotations in high-need areas, but only if the study leads to actual funding or program expansion.
Hospitals and clinical training sites—particularly in rural areas—may gain insights into cost-efficient training models, but without dedicated funding, they may absorb added administrative or operational burdens.
Rural and underserved residents stand to benefit long-term if increased primary care training translates into more providers locating in their communities, but immediate impact is limited to potential future policy changes.
State agencies (e.g., Health Care Authority, Board of Health) gain new reporting duties but no new funding, potentially increasing workload without additional staffing—though this supports evidence-based health planning.
Medical schools and faculty may benefit from new data on preceptorship costs that could inform curriculum design and grant applications, but the bill does not guarantee new resources or structural support.