Elizabeth Hovde believes lawmakers should continue exploring ways to increase the current pipeline of nurses, avoiding unnecessary licensing restrictions
Elizabeth Hovde
Washington Policy Center
I wondered if this would start happening, as high pay for travel nurses is unsustainable, not to mention irritating when a nurse lives down the street from a hospital where he or she used to be a regular employee. A New York health system, St. Peter’s Health Partners, is banning local travel nurses.
Nurses who live within a 50-mile radius of their workplace, according to WRGB, a CBS affiliate station in Albany, New York, won’t be able to take advantage of the high pay for travel nurses with St. Peter’s. That is part smart but also concerning.
Nurses in the workforce are rightly irritated that a travel nurse working alongside them makes more money than they do when the nurse lives in the area of their workplace. For some, travel nursing is seen as a good way to make money, not just a way to help out where needed while traveling the nation. Travel nursing has strayed from its original purpose, and the high cost isn’t healthy for the system of care we all rely on, adding to higher health care costs.
Dr. Steven Hanks, the president and CEO of Trinity Health New York, told WRGB, “What we’re experiencing in the post-pandemic period is that our travel staff are more likely to not be actually traveling, and instead are moving over from neighboring facilities in order to take advantage of the enhanced rates.”
That doesn’t mean states should ban travel nursing, as our state did until just this year with the passage of legislation allowing us to join the Nurse Licensure Compact (NLC). There are special circumstances — like pandemics and staffing shortages — in which hospitals have no choice but to hire labor from outside their market to meet the needs of patients. States need to keep the window open to the benefits of the NLC, which equips nurses with a multistate license that allows them to put their skills to use in any state that is part of the compact. It’s an important issue for health care and worker rights. (Washington state became the 38th state to pass legislation — Senate Bill 5499 — to join the NLC. It is awaiting implementation now.)
Nurses in the New York system are rightly worried about workplace conditions that a ban on local travel nurses could bring. They’re concerned it will result in more patients per nurse. In states or hospitals with rigid staffing ratios, meeting the needs of patients is even more complicated and dangerous.
I asked the Washington State Hospital Association (WSHA) what it thinks about a ban on local travel nurses.
Chelene Whiteaker, WSHA’s senior vice president of government affairs, said the association would be watching to see the impacts in New York. “The challenge with all of this is, at the end of the day, hospitals have patients who need care.” Agreed. “Our hospital’s leaders have said they would prefer flexibility over restrictions because they worry about negative impacts to patients,” she said, adding, “We don’t know what the future holds here and as hospital finances continue to be in the negative, policy positions can change. We are monitoring the situation in our state.”
WSHA also is eager to see data about the travel nursing market in Washington state, as is now required. Senate Bill 5547, also passed this last legislative session, requires nurse-staffing agencies to report many things, including the number of placements they make that are within 25 and 50 miles of a health or long-term care personnel’s residence.
Fixing nurse staffing woes in Washington state will ultimately depend on the production of more nurses here. Lawmakers should continue exploring ways to increase the current pipeline of nurses, avoiding unnecessary licensing restrictions.
Elizabeth 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.
Also read:
- Opinion: The income tax passed the House – what’s next?
Washington House approved a new tax despite bipartisan opposition; business leaders and residents signal economic impact and looming legal fights. - Opinion: Washington’s fight for liberty
Conservative columnist Nancy Churchill argues that despite the passage of a new 9.9% state income tax, signs of shifting political momentum in Washington state give reason for hope and continued action. - Opinion: Brandi Kruse and I are feeling discouraged but we’re planning to continue advocating for political change. Will you?
Clark County Today Editor Ken Vance reflects on a discouraging week in Washington state politics, echoing Brandi Kruse’s frustrations over Democrats’ state income tax victory and local decisions on transit and ICE while urging conservatives not to give up on advocating for political change. - Opinion: ‘My thoughts on yesterday’s tragic state income tax’
Leslie Lewallen argues Democrats passed an unconstitutional “millionaires tax” on March 10, 2026, rejected more than 70 Republican amendments, and set Washington on a path she says will harm jobs, schools, and families statewide. - Opinion: Starbucks founder flees the new NW tax hell
Lars Larson argues that Howard and Sheri Schultz are leaving the Pacific Northwest for Miami following Washington’s new millionaires tax and rapid state budget growth in Oregon and Washington.
