Elizabeth New (Hovde) argues that while HB 2088 would help dietitians, Washington should pursue universal licensure recognition to reduce broader workforce licensing barriers.

Elizabeth New (Hovde) says lawmakers should be supportive of lowering barriers for dietitians and use this compact moment as a gateway to build a universal licensure recognition framework that covers many professions all at once

Elizabeth New (Hovde)
Washington Policy Center

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.

Elizabeth New (Hovde), Washington Policy Center

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.

Elizabeth New (Hovde) is a policy analyst and the director of the Centers for Health Care and Worker Rights at the Washington Policy Center. She is a Clark County resident.

Under the Grok Lens

Analysis created with Grok

This independent analysis was created with Grok, an AI model from xAI. It is not written or edited by ClarkCountyToday.com and is provided to help readers evaluate the article’s sourcing and context.

Quick summary

In this opinion column, Washington Policy Center analyst Elizabeth New (Hovde) supports House Bill 2088, which would have Washington join the Dietitian Licensure Compact, and argues lawmakers should treat the compact as a first step toward a broader universal licensure recognition approach. She contends that a universal recognition framework could make it easier for qualified out‑of‑state professionals across many fields to work in Washington, potentially easing workforce shortages and reducing administrative delays.

What Grok notices

Explains how profession‑specific licensure compacts work and presents them as a way to improve interstate mobility, while arguing universal recognition could be a broader and faster route for many occupations.
Contrasts compacts with universal recognition by emphasizing administrative efficiency and the idea that an out‑of‑state license can serve as evidence of qualification without repeating the entire licensing process.
Uses Washington‑specific framing by citing claims about the state’s relatively high licensing burdens and referencing external rankings (including from the Institute for Justice) and trends in other states adopting universal recognition models.
Encourages readers to examine the details of HB 2088 and highlights that design choices—such as eligibility standards, enforcement authority, and disciplinary sharing—shape how portable licensing can be in practice.
Reflects the author’s broader argument that reducing administrative barriers can improve access to professionals and services, including patient care, without necessarily lowering standards.

Questions worth asking

Compared with profession‑specific compacts, how would universal licensure recognition affect consumer protection—such as background checks, continuing education, and discipline reporting?
What factors tend to slow adoption of universal recognition in states with many licensing requirements (board resistance, statutory complexity, liability concerns, or staffing limits)?
If Washington joins the Dietitian Compact, would that create momentum for broader portability reforms, or would it reduce pressure by solving mobility for only one profession?
How do workforce shortages in health‑related fields interact with licensing timelines—especially in rural areas or specialty roles where recruitment is already difficult?
What trade‑offs exist between state‑specific enforcement autonomy and interstate portability for licensed professionals, and how do other states handle those trade‑offs?

Research this topic more

Also read:

Opinion: IBR’s evasive, misleading and dishonest excuses for higher cost
Joe Cortright argues the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program has withheld detailed cost estimates while offering contradictory explanations for rising costs tied to the I-5 Bridge project.
Opinion: The limits for drug-impaired driving
Target Zero Manager Doug Dahl explains how Washington law defines drug-impaired driving and how officers are trained to recognize impairment beyond alcohol limits.
Opinion: ‘Please make your voice heard by taking my legislative priorities survey’
Rep. John Ley invites Clark County residents to share their views by participating in a legislative priorities survey during the 2026 session.
POLL: Do the proposed changes to the Clark County Council’s Rules of Procedure suggest the council lacked authority in 2025?
A new reader poll asks whether proposed changes to the Clark County Council’s Rules of Procedure indicate the council lacked clear authority during a 2025 board removal.
Letter: ‘HSD needs to give a detailed line-item accounting of where the last levy went, and of how they plan to use this one’
Randall Schultz-Rathbun urges Hockinson School District to provide detailed, transparent accounting of past and proposed levy spending before asking voters for additional funds.