OSHA Compliance
The Federal OSHA Healthcare WVP Rule in 2026: Parked, Not Imminent
OSHA's healthcare workplace violence rulemaking sits in Long-Term Actions with no proposed rule published. Where it actually stands in 2026 — and why the obligations you already have matter more.
OSHA's healthcare workplace violence rulemaking is parked, not imminent — and saying so precisely matters, because this industry is full of vendors selling urgency against a rule that does not exist. As of the Unified Agenda published August 14, 2026, the rulemaking (RIN 1218-AD08, "Workplace Violence in Health Care and Social Assistance") sits in Long-Term Actions with the proposed-rule date listed as "To Be Determined." No proposed rule has ever been published. There is no final rule. Nothing is enforceable.
#Where the rulemaking actually stands
The procedural record, in order — and then a long silence:
- December 7, 2016 — OSHA publishes a Request for Information (81 FR 88147), the first formal step.
- December 29, 2022 – May 1, 2023 — the SBREFA panel (the small-business review that precedes a major OSHA proposal) is convened and concludes (Source: OSHA Workplace Violence SBREFA).
- After that: no proposed rule. Earlier agenda editions floated target dates — they came and went unmet. In the Spring 2025 agenda, the rulemaking moved from the Proposed Rule stage to Long-Term Actions, where the August 2026 edition keeps it, with the NPRM date "To Be Determined."
A Long-Term Actions listing is the agenda's way of saying the agency does not expect regulatory action within the coming year. And even when a proposed rule eventually appears, a comment period and a final rule stand between it and anything enforceable. Anyone telling you a federal workplace violence standard is imminent is not reading the agenda.
#Why you should not wait for it
The temptation is to treat a future rule as a reason to delay. That gets the risk exactly backwards. Two enforceable obligations already exist today, independent of any federal rule:
- OSHA's General Duty Clause §5(a)(1) already makes workplace violence a citable recognized hazard for hospitals. Federal data establishing the hazard — a healthcare workplace-violence injury rate roughly 5× the private-sector average in 2018 (BLS, 2018) — is already in the record. A facility with no program is exposed now. See does OSHA require hospitals to prevent workplace violence for how that enforcement works.
- Texas HSC Chapter 331 (the SB 240 mandate) has required the originally covered Texas facility classes to maintain a written program since September 1, 2024 (classes added by SB 463 must comply by September 1, 2026) — committee, plan, annual training, reporting policy, post-incident response, and an annual evaluation to the governing body.
A future federal rule does not reduce either obligation. It would add a third layer to obligations a Texas facility should already be meeting.
#The states are not waiting — and neither is Texas
The federal vacuum is being filled state by state, which is exactly why the "wait for OSHA" posture fails:
| Jurisdiction | Status |
|---|---|
| California — 8 CCR §3342 | The only mature healthcare-specific state OSHA standard, fully in force since April 2018: plan, training, and a violent-incident log |
| California — SB 553 (Labor Code §6401.9) | The general-industry companion, effective July 1, 2024 |
| Oregon — OAR 437-002-0150 | Proposed healthcare WVP rule; comment period closed August 31, 2026, projected effective January 2027 |
| Washington — RCW 49.19 | Hospital WVP plan, training, and reporting requirements |
| New York — Labor Law §27-b | WVP requirements for public employers, public hospitals included |
| Texas — HSC Chapter 331 | The covered-facility mandate: original classes since September 1, 2024; classes added by SB 463 by September 1, 2026 |
The common spine across every one of these is the same: a written plan, a worksite analysis, training, recordkeeping, and periodic review. Texas is a federal-OSHA state — there is no "Texas OSHA" — so for Texas facilities the enforceable pair today is the General Duty Clause plus Chapter 331.
#What a federal rule would likely require
No proposed rule text is final, so specifics are not yet citable. But the consistent structure across OSHA Publication 3148, Chapter 331, and the state statutes above points to a predictable core. A federal rule would most likely require:
- A written workplace violence prevention program
- A worksite analysis with hazard identification
- Hazard prevention and controls
- Training for affected staff
- Recordkeeping and a periodic program evaluation
That is the five-component Publication 3148 framework. A facility already built to those five components would adapt to a federal rule, not start over.
#How to prepare without betting on the timing
The right posture is to build the program you already owe under §5(a)(1) and Chapter 331, structured so it absorbs a future rule with minimal rework:
- Build to OSHA Publication 3148 now — the five components are the through-line across every existing and anticipated regime.
- Keep the program a living record through an annual program review, so adding a new requirement is an update, not a rebuild.
- Watch the rulemaking as upside, not a dependency — check RIN 1218-AD08 in the Unified Agenda twice a year; until it leaves Long-Term Actions and an actual proposed rule publishes, nothing about your obligations has changed.
Multi-state operators and healthcare systems carry the most to gain here, because a single program of record built to the common framework scales across jurisdictions.
#Where to start
If your facility's program is incomplete — or nonexistent — the federal rulemaking is a reason to act sooner, not a reason to wait. A flat-fee survey-readiness audit scores your program against OSHA, Chapter 331, and the Joint Commission today, and our OSHA compliance engagement builds the Publication 3148 program that a future federal rule would ask you to have already.