Adds a new section to chapter 71.24 RCW authorizing "the department" to apply to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for approval to serve as an accrediting body for opioid treatment programs under federal regulation 42 C.F.R. Part 8. If HHS approves the department as an accreditor, the department must carry out accreditation responsibilities according to HHS‑approved policies and procedures and must establish accreditation fees by rule. The department must set fees, including initial accreditation and renewal fees, at levels sufficient to cover the costs of the accreditation services it provides. The department may use appropriations from the opioid abatement settlement account to offset its costs in providing these accreditation services. This is a procedural statutory change creating a state accreditation authority and fee‑setting requirement tied to federal accreditation standards; it does not create a new crime or change criminal penalties. The bill text in the provided material does not explicitly define which state agency "the department" refers to, does not specify the exact new RCW section number, does not include any effective date or rulemaking timeline, and does not state specific fee amounts or details about the opioid abatement settlement account. The bill was prefiled 01/05/2026 and passed the Senate on February 13, 2026 (Yeas 47, Nays 1) and the House on March 4, 2026 (Yeas 62, Nays 34).

If the state gets HHS approval, a state agency would become an approved accreditor for opioid treatment programs and would be required to run accreditation under HHS‑approved policies, charge initial and renewal fees set by rule, and set those fees high enough to cover the cost of providing accreditation. Opioid treatment programs would likely have to use this new state accreditation process and pay the associated fees, while the agency taking on accreditation would assume the work and costs of operating the program but could offset some of those costs using money from the opioid abatement settlement account. Key details are missing: the bill text here does not explicitly name which agency is “the department” (though the bill was requested by the Department of Health), it does not give any fee amounts or rulemaking timeline, and there is no effective date or schedule for implementation, so the timing, cost impact, and exact administrative responsibilities remain uncertain.