Washington Administrative Code Title 257 - Home Care Quality Authority
I. Purpose and Legal Role of WAC Title 257
WAC Title 257 implements the statutory duties of the Home Care Quality Authority, which was created to improve the quality, stability, and professionalism of individual providers (IPs) who deliver in-home personal care services to Medicaid-eligible clients in Washington.
The Authority is unusual because:
The State is the employer of record for collective bargaining purposes only
Consumers retain the right to hire, fire, and supervise their individual providers
HCQA does not deliver care; it regulates systems that support care quality
Title 257 translates this hybrid employment model into enforceable administrative rules.
II. Structure of WAC Title 257
1. WAC 257-10 – General Provisions
This chapter defines:
Individual providers
Consumers
Home care services
Training and workforce development authority
Legal significance:
Courts and agencies rely on these definitions to determine:
Whether a worker qualifies as an IP
Whether HCQA or another agency has jurisdiction
Whether collective bargaining rules apply
Administrative disputes often hinge on these definitions rather than service facts.
2. WAC 257-20 – Training Standards and Requirements
This chapter governs:
Mandatory orientation and basic training
Continuing education
Specialized training (e.g., dementia, diabetes)
Training exemptions and equivalencies
Key legal principles:
Training is a condition of eligibility to receive Medicaid payment
Failure to complete training can result in loss of authorization to work
HCQA sets standards, while DSHS enforces payment eligibility
This separation of roles has been important in litigation involving enforcement authority.
3. WAC 257-30 – Workforce Development and Quality Improvement
This chapter addresses:
Career pathways
Peer mentoring
Recruitment and retention programs
Quality improvement initiatives
Legal significance:
These rules justify HCQA’s expenditure of public funds and its coordination with labor organizations, without turning HCQA into a direct employer.
4. WAC 257-40 – Registry and Referral Systems
This chapter authorizes:
A statewide individual provider registry
Background-checked referral systems
Data sharing within statutory privacy limits
Legal constraints:
HCQA may facilitate matching but cannot compel a consumer to hire
Registry inclusion does not create employment rights
Privacy and due process protections apply to exclusion from registries
5. WAC 257-50 – Collective Bargaining Support Functions
This chapter supports:
Training and benefits negotiated through collective bargaining
Implementation of union contracts for IPs
Important limitation:
HCQA does not bargain, but supports execution of agreements negotiated under state labor law.
III. Case Law Involving HCQA and WAC Title 257
A. Overall Judicial Landscape
There is very little published Washington case law directly interpreting WAC Title 257 itself.
Instead, courts have addressed:
The legal status of individual providers
The State’s role as a “public employer”
The lawfulness of collective bargaining structures
The limits of agency authority, including HCQA
Most cases interpret statutes, with WAC Title 257 treated as implementing authority rather than the primary object of litigation.
B. Key Washington Cases (Indirect but Important)
1. Service Employees International Union Healthcare 775NW v. State of Washington
(Washington Supreme Court, late 2000s)
Holding (simplified):
The State may designate itself as the employer of individual providers solely for collective bargaining
This does not violate consumer control or constitutional principles
Relevance to WAC 257:
Validates the legal foundation for HCQA’s existence
Confirms that training, benefits, and workforce standards may be administered without making the State a full employer
Supports WAC provisions related to workforce development and training funding
2. Individual Provider Classification Cases (Administrative & Appellate)
Washington courts have repeatedly affirmed that:
Individual providers are not traditional state employees
Agencies like HCQA may regulate conditions of participation (training, registry inclusion)
Such regulation does not create civil service rights
Effect on WAC 257:
Upholds training mandates under WAC 257-20
Supports registry rules under WAC 257-40
Limits due process claims to statutory entitlements, not employment expectations
3. Federal Context: Harris v. Quinn (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014)
(Not a Washington case, but influential)
Holding:
States may treat home care workers as “partial-public employees”
Compelled union fees were limited under the First Amendment
Impact in Washington:
Did not invalidate HCQA
Required adjustments to fee structures
Left intact WAC Title 257’s training and quality-improvement framework
Washington courts have cited this case to explain the constitutional boundaries of HCQA-related authority.
IV. Legal Themes Courts Have Consistently Recognized
Across cases touching HCQA and its rules, courts emphasize:
Consumer Control Is Paramount
Any rule undermining hiring/firing autonomy would be invalid
Training Is Regulatory, Not Employment
WAC 257 training requirements are lawful conditions of Medicaid participation
HCQA Is a Coordinating Authority
Not a care provider
Not a traditional employer
Not a licensing body
Rules Must Stay Within Statutory Authorization
HCQA cannot expand its role beyond RCW authority, even for quality goals
V. Practical Legal Effect of WAC Title 257
In practice, Title 257:
Determines who may legally be paid as an individual provider
Shapes administrative appeals involving training compliance
Influences labor negotiations without directly regulating unions
Serves as a defensive shield for the State when consumer-control challenges arise
VI. Summary
WAC Title 257 operationalizes a unique hybrid public-private caregiving system
Direct case law interpreting Title 257 is sparse
Courts have consistently upheld the framework supporting HCQA’s rules
The most important judicial guidance comes from classification and collective-bargaining cases, not training disputes
The rules are strongest where they promote quality without intruding on consumer autonomy
RELATED Blog
comments