Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nursing Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Split testimony at committee over limiting Board of Nursing oversight
Summary
House Bill 24‑98, which would let national nursing accreditation substitute for certain state approval requirements and expedite approvals for accredited programs, divided stakeholders: community colleges and some college presidents supported streamlining to expand capacity, while the Washington State Board of Nursing, employers and nursing education organizations warned it would weaken state oversight and risk patient safety.
House Bill 24‑98 prompted extensive, often sharply divided testimony on Feb. 4 over whether Washington should rely primarily on national nursing accreditation for program approval.
Saranda Ross summarized the bill: it would require the Washington State Board of Nursing to provide technical assistance on corrective action plans for programs with NCLEX pass rates below 80%, expedite approval of nationally accredited programs, and prohibit the Board from imposing requirements beyond national accreditation standards in several areas.
Supporters — including community‑college presidents, nursing program directors and some university presidents — said the Board’s current rules (many WACs) have grown burdensome and slowed program expansion at a time of acute nursing shortages. Tim Stokes (South Puget Sound Community College) said the Board’s practices have been ‘‘the single largest contributor to the nursing shortage’’ in parts of the state and described lengthy corrective‑action timelines. Yakima Valley College President Teresa Rich and Spokane Community College President Jenny Martin urged faster approvals to allow program expansion, particularly in rural counties.
The Washington State Board of Nursing and many nursing organizations opposed the bill. Allison Brady Wood, executive director of the Board, said national accreditors cannot replace state approval because 47 states require both approval and accreditation; she noted state oversight is focused on patient safety and local workforce realities. Employers (for example, Providence North Division) and the Washington State Nurses Association warned that reduced state authority could allow unsafe or uneven programs and create liability and patient‑safety risk.
Several witnesses urged patience to let the Board’s ongoing WAC revision process run its course; Board witnesses said they were already revising rules to reduce barriers and had public workshops and metrics tracking turnaround times.
Why it matters: testimony framed a tradeoff — reduce duplicative state requirements to expand capacity faster, or preserve state approval authority to ensure program quality and public safety. The committee did not take a final vote; testimony closed with calls for continued stakeholder engagement and consideration of alternative language.
The committee concluded the public hearing on HB 24‑98 with no formal action.
