Wash. Rev. Code » Title 19 · Chapter 19.68
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.68.010 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or association, whether organized as a cooperative, or for profit or nonprofit, to pay, or offer to pay or allow, directly or indirectly, to any person licensed by the state of Washington to engage in the practice of medicine and surgery, drugless treatment in any form, dentistry, or pharmacy and it shall be unlawful for such person to request, receive or allow, directly or indirectly, a rebate, refund, commission, unearned discount or profit by means of a credit or other valuable consideration in connection with the referral of patients to any person, firm, corporation or association, or in connection with the furnishings of medical, surgical or dental care, diagnosis, treatment or service, on the sale, rental, furnishing or supplying of clinical laboratory supplies or services of any kind, drugs, medication, or medical supplies, or any other goods, services or supplies prescribed for medical diagnosis, care or treatment.
(2) Ownership of a financial interest in any firm, corporation or association which furnishes any kind of clinical laboratory or other services prescribed for medical, surgical, or dental diagnosis shall not be prohibited under this section where (a) the referring practitioner affirmatively discloses to the patient in writing, the fact that such practitioner has a financial interest in such firm, corporation, or association; and (b) the referring practitioner provides the patient with a list of effective alternative facilities, informs the patient that he or she has the option to use one of the alternative facilities, and assures the patient that he or she will not be treated differently by the referring practitioner if the patient chooses one of the alternative facilities.
(3) Any person violating this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.
[ 2003 c 53 s 147; 1993 c 492 s 233; 1973 1st ex.s. c 26 s 1; 1965 ex.s. c 58 s 1. Prior: 1949 c 204 s 1; Rem. Supp. 1949 s 10185-14.]

Notes:

Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Findings—Intent—1993 c 492: See notes following RCW 43.20.050.
Short title—Savings—Reservation of legislative power—Effective dates—1993 c 492: See RCW 43.72.910 through 43.72.915.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1969–2010 · leading case: Wright v. Jeckle, 144 P.3d 301 (Wash. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wright v. Jeckle, 144 P.3d 301 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 28× “l Society, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Skagit-island Counties Medical Society, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Snohomish County Medical Society, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Thurston-mason County Medical Society, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Yakima County Medical Society, Amicus Curiae on…”
Wright v. Jeckle, 158 Wash. 2d 375 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 28× “We are asked today to decide whether RCW 19.68.010 is an “antikickback” statute or an antiprofit statute.”
Columbia Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Benton Franklin Orthopedic Assocs., PLLC, 228 P.3d 1260 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 3× “In Day , the court first determined that the referrals by the ophthalmologists ran afoul of the prohibitions in RCW 19.68.010 and .020. 76 Wn.2d at 418-19 .”
Day v. Inland Empire Optical, Inc., 456 P.2d 1011 (Wash. 1969). · cites it 4× “) That the legislature saw a menace to the public health and welfare in the possibility of rebates, refunds, commissions, unearned discounts and profits extracted or received by practicing physicians in connection with the referral of patients to others engaged in the medical…”
Columbia Physical Therapy v. Bfoa, 228 P.3d 1260 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 3× “In Day , the court first determined that the referrals by the ophthalmologists ran afoul of the prohibitions in RCW 19.68.010 and .020. 76 Wash.2d at 418-19 , 456 P.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.68.010(1) — 3 cases
Columbia Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Benton Franklin Orthopedic Assocs., PLLC, 228 P.3d 1260 (Wash. 2010). “In Day , the court first determined that the referrals by the ophthalmologists ran afoul of the prohibitions in RCW 19.68.010 and .020. 76 Wn.2d at 418-19 .”
Wright v. Jeckle, 158 Wash. 2d 375 (Wash. 2006). “We are asked today to decide whether RCW 19.68.010 is an “antikickback” statute or an antiprofit statute.”
Columbia Physical Therapy v. Bfoa, 228 P.3d 1260 (Wash. 2010). “In Day , the court first determined that the referrals by the ophthalmologists ran afoul of the prohibitions in RCW 19.68.010 and .020. 76 Wash.2d at 418-19 , 456 P.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.68.010(2) — 2 cases
Columbia Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Benton Franklin Orthopedic Assocs., PLLC, 228 P.3d 1260 (Wash. 2010). “In Day , the court first determined that the referrals by the ophthalmologists ran afoul of the prohibitions in RCW 19.68.010 and .020. 76 Wn.2d at 418-19 .”
Columbia Physical Therapy v. Bfoa, 228 P.3d 1260 (Wash. 2010). “In Day , the court first determined that the referrals by the ophthalmologists ran afoul of the prohibitions in RCW 19.68.010 and .020. 76 Wash.2d at 418-19 , 456 P.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.