Washington state’s 2026 legislative session opened Monday, and it’s overwhelming. More than 700 bills have already been introduced for lawmakers to consider, and the pitch to add an income tax to Washington state workers is consuming a lot of energy. But a House Postsecondary Education & Workforce Committee hearing on Tuesday was refreshing. It considered just one proposal that offered a bit of calm and hope before the storm.
HB 2088 was the bill the committee considered. It would bring the state into the Dietitian Licensure Compact.
Compacts are tools that can help workers, patients, consumers and the whole state with its workforce needs. They make it easier for qualified professionals to move across state lines and get to work without complication and cost. The state has rightly warmed to several worker compacts in the last several years.
Under this compact, a licensed dietitian could gain “compact privilege” to practice in other member states, with systems for sharing licensure, investigative and disciplinary information. Each state also retains authority to enforce its own practice laws (including telehealth).
The hearing attracted about a dozen people who spoke in favor of joining the compact. I registered “other” for testimony I provided, only because my position is yes to compacts — and yes to something even simpler and more powerful.
Compacts are a profession-by-profession solution. They’re helpful, but they’re also inherently piecemeal. Since Washington state keeps adding compacts one at a time, we’re building a licensing system that looks like a patchwork quilt that requires more administration and cost than necessary.
Universal licensure recognition (ULR) is a better way to go. ULR is a statewide framework that recognizes out-of-state licenses that are active, unencumbered and in good standing, with clear guardrails and full enforcement authority for Washington state regulators. In other words, ULR allows the recognition of already-qualified professionals and puts them to work safely, sooner, without duplicating bureaucracy and calling it consumer protection.
The case for ULR is especially strong in Washington state because our licensing burdens are already heavy. The Institute for Justice’s research ranks Washington among the worst states overall for licensing burdens in lower-income occupations — an ugly sign that we impose a lot of friction on the workforce, often without clear safety payoff.
The Archbridge Institute reports that as of 2025, 28 states have adopted some form of universal licensing recognition. And there’s practical help available: West Virginia University’s Knee Center has produced research and policy guidance on universal licensing reforms and points interested states to model legislation.
Lawmakers should be supportive of lowering barriers for dietitians and use this compact moment as a gateway to build a ULR framework that covers many professions all at once. Lawmakers can reduce administrative complexity and help workers — and patient access — faster than a profession-by-profession rollout can.
