Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/07/2016 08:30 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB259 | |
| HB188 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 259 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 188 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 188
"An Act relating to financial accounts for persons
with disabilities; relating to financial institutions;
relating to property exemptions; relating to
securities; and providing for an effective date."
9:10:41 AM
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 188, Work Draft (29-LS0787\G). There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Thompson invited his staff, Mr. Anderson to
the table to explain the differences between Version I [N]
and the committee substitute version G.
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON,
explained the changes to the committee substitute. There
were four changes in the bill from the previous version. He
noted the first change was on Page 1 of the previous
Version P [N] on lines 2 and 3 in the title. It deleted
"Creating a limited property exemption for money in or paid
from a financial account in the program with an individual
with a disability". The second change was on Page 9, lines
2-8 of Version P [N]. It deleted Section 06.65.260, the
exemption from creditor claims which removed the exemption
from the bill. The third change was also in Version P [N]
on Page 11 [12], lines 20-12 [17-18]. It deleted conforming
language from subsection 11. The final change was all other
sections after the deletion were remunerated to reflect the
new sections.
9:12:37 AM
Representative Munoz asked Mr. Anderson to repeat the first
change. Mr. Anderson responded that it was a title change
which deleted the sections referencing the exemption. In
the previous version the lines were on Page 1, lines 2-3.
Vice-Chair Saddler wanted to answer two questions from
earlier meetings. There had been a question about whether
there was a need for funds in the ABLE account to be
protected from creditors. In the CS before the committee
the section was deleted that would have provided the
protection against creditors and state law including child
support orders. There was no inhibition to prevent a
creditor from going after the amount of funds in the
account. One of the questions that had been asked concerned
the lack of a zero fiscal note from Department of Health
and Social Services (DHSS). The department had consulted
with Department of Revenue (DOR) and currently there was a
zero fiscal note reflecting the minimal to implement the
bill. The cost could be covered with the department's
existing budget. There had been some discussion about what
level of disability qualified a person to open an ABLE
account and how a disability was determined. He answered
that a person had to either be eligible for supplemental
security income or meet the same standard. The standard
stated that the disability standard for children for
claiming benefits under the supplemental security income
program was based on the disability which meant that they
had to have marked and severe functional limitations. The
certification of the limitations had to include a copy of
the individual's diagnosis relating to that person's
relative impairments and signed by a licensed physician
under the penalty of perjury.
Vice-Chair Saddler continued that there was a question as
to how to be sure a person was using their ABLE account for
the appropriate expenses. The answer was that they had to
file the appropriate paperwork with the IRS to document
their deposits and their disbursements from their ABLE
account. If someone were to lie on their tax return they
would be subject to the same penalty that placed Al Capone
in jail. Lastly, it was asked at what level of precedence
did the state have in recovering Medicaid expenses from an
ABLE account. The state was fifth. He elaborated that the
order of precedence was that first their estate went to pay
the costs and expenses for the administration of the
estate; second, the regional funeral expenses; third, debts
and taxes with a federal preference for child support past
due payments; fourth, reasonable and necessary medical
expenses of the last illness of the person who died; fifth,
debts and taxes with preference including Medicaid
payments; and sixth, all other claims. If there was any
other money remaining it would go to the person's estate to
be disposed of by will or through the probate court
process.
9:15:50 AM
Representative Gattis thanked the sponsor. She thought the
bill was better in the current day than in the previous
day.
Vice-Chair Saddler appreciated the thoroughness of the
committee process.
9:16:16 AM
Representative Kawasaki asked about the fiscal note. He
stated that part of the ABLE Act was to shield assets
within the account for purposes of Medicaid and other
programs. He thought it would have a fiscal impact if the
account was no longer an asset of the individual.
Vice-Chair Saddler responded in the negative. He explained
that Medicaid was not a means except for the original
qualification. He relayed that the means testing was
primarily for supplemental security income.
9:17:03 AM
Representative Kawasaki asked if it included other programs
the state had specifically through the group that also had
asset tests.
Vice-Chair Saddler responded in the affirmative.
9:17:18 AM
Representative Gara remarked that there would be a certain
number of additional people who would qualify for Medicaid
which he thought was appropriate. He hoped in the following
year the legislature would not have to make additional cuts
to make up for it. He thought the individuals deserved
treatment. He asked Vice-Chair Saddler if he had an opinion
on the issue.
Vice-Chair Saddler did not see how it would add to the
categories of people who qualified for Medicaid.
9:17:56 AM
Representative Gara indicated the bill would help shield
assets from being counted which he thought was completely
fine. He thought some people would qualify for Medicaid who
currently did not.
9:18:15 AM
KIM SKIPPER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE DAN SADDLER, responded
that the bill was intended for disabled people, some who
could be on Medicaid and social security income. However,
she did not think it would add to the number of people on
Medicaid but would enable the people in the disabled
condition to save money.
Vice-Chair Saddler added that it would be people who were
disabled and often did not have income. He did not believe
there would be many people that would be working, earning
income, and having an ABLE account sheltering income. The
point of the bill was to shelter their income from interest
on an account.
9:19:14 AM
Representative Gara did not have a problem with additional
recipients. He just did not want to have to see an
additional reduction to offset it. He also asked if
disabled people would no longer be protected from creditors
on the ABLE account with the new version of the bill. He
wondered if the representative was comfortable with the
change.
Vice-Chair Saddler stated that he was correct. The
protections were removed in the newest version of the bill.
He was comfortable because he did not see much of a risk of
someone going bankrupt. There was an interest and concern
expressed about people that would potentially seek to abuse
the account. He did not see much of a risk and did not
think the protection was all that effective in the first
place.
9:20:22 AM
Representative Wilson stated that the definition from the
previous day versus how it was depicted in the current
version of the bill was much different. She was in support
of the bill. She knew folks who had wanted to get part time
jobs. However, social security took $2 away from a person
for every dollar they made which was not a big incentive to
get a job. She thought any extra income was a benefit. The
bill would allow folks to get a job without being
penalized. She really appreciated a better definition which
made her feel more comfortable with the legislation. She
thanked the bill sponsor.
9:21:28 AM
Co-Chair Neuman reviewed the fiscal notes from the bill.
9:22:07 AM
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT CSHB 188 (FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero and fiscal impact notes. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 188 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one zero fiscal note by the
Department of Health and Social Services and one fiscal
impact note by the Department of Revenue.
Co-Chair Thompson reviewed the agenda for the following
meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 188 NEW FN DOR T&T 4-6-16.pdf |
HFIN 4/7/2016 8:30:00 AM |
HB 188 |
| HB 188 CS WORKDRAFT FIN vG.pdf |
HFIN 4/7/2016 8:30:00 AM |
HB 188 |