This bill creates a new legislative section stating findings and intent that telehealth and teleaudiology are important modalities of care and that regulation should be modality-agnostic and focused on the applicable standard of care, and it amends RCW 18.35.161 to specify the powers and duties of "the board" (as referenced) including establishing minimum standards and procedures for fitting and dispensing hearing instruments, adopting rules, developing and administering licensure examinations, certifying applicants, recommending continuing education/competency requirements for renewal, keeping official records, responding to stakeholder questions, and requiring restitution to individuals injured by violations under this chapter or chapter 18.130 RCW. The amendment also directs that standards be applied consistently across different modalities and that rules relating to standards of care for hearing aid specialists, audiologists, and speech-language pathologists must respect licensed practitioners’ clinical decision making and autonomy to choose the most appropriate modality or method of treatment. Legally, the measure both creates a new statutory findings/intent section and modifies existing law (an amendment to RCW 18.35.161). The changes are regulatory and procedural: they constrain how the board may adopt rules, clarify duties and authorities (including authority to require restitution under the uniform disciplinary act), and emphasize modality-neutral standards and clinical autonomy. The bill does not create a new crime; it clarifies regulatory powers and disciplinary/restorative authority. The text repeatedly references "the board" and "this chapter" but does not identify the board or provide full chapter context here, and it does not include formal definitions of "telehealth" or "teleaudiology." The bill is House Bill 2618 (H-3026.1), sponsored by Representative Shavers, read for the first time 01/22/26, and referred to the Committee on Health Care & Wellness.

If enacted, this bill would make it more likely that audiologists, hearing aid specialists, and speech-language pathologists can use telehealth or teleaudiology without being blocked by rules that favor in-person care. Practitioners would have clearer support to choose the care modality they judge appropriate, which may expand patient access to remote services and change how providers schedule, deliver, and justify care. Consumers could see more telehealth options for hearing and speech services; providers would have somewhat reduced regulatory risk when offering remote care but might need to document clinical decisions to justify modality choices. The state licensing board referenced would be directed to revise and apply its rules in a way that treats in-person and remote care consistently, while continuing its existing duties like setting minimum standards for fitting hearing instruments, testing and certifying applicants, requiring continuing education, keeping records, and ordering restitution for violations. That could require the board to review and rewrite rules, which may create administrative work and possible short-term costs. Important details are missing from the excerpt — the specific board and chapter named, and formal definitions for telehealth or teleaudiology — so how quickly or precisely these changes would be implemented is unclear.