House Standing Committee on Health

Aloha. We're gathered for community and tourist human services and homelessness, 10AM hearing on Tuesday, 03/17/2026, 10AM. Our first measure will be just community human services and homelessness, with myself as chair. And then our next measure will be a joint hearing with the community and human services homelessness and

The Committee on Health with, Chair Takayama, who's joining us here today. So we will move to our first measure, SB 3,025 SD two, relating to medical debt. This is to, do medical debt forgiveness program funded by the state. And first up, we have in person DCCA. Are they present? Oh, okay. They had comments. Oh, I'm sorry. I have wrong measure. Let me flip my paper over. Okay. First step, we have in support of the office of wellness. So

Aloha, Chair, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. Tia Hartsock, Director of the Office of Wellness and Resilience. We stand on our testimony in strong support of this measure and would like to move all the community organizations that have brought us forward. It's not in our test, on our written testimony, but we'd like to respectfully request a small amendment to add the terms subject to the availability of program funds to the built language. Thank you for hearing this bill, and we are available for any questions.

Great. Thank you very much. Next up, we have Matt Crawford with a whole new collective in support. We're in just a Patrick's Green.

Aloha Chair, Chairs, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Matt Probert with the Colombo Collaborative local nonprofit founded to advocate for policies to keep away or make away

a form so local folks don't have to move to the continent. You do have our written testimony that I will stand on. I just wanna add or highlight one part of the testimony on our second page. The important part of this bill to remember is medical debt is not the type of debt that people are actively looking. Not that you went out and buy a car and it's something we cannot pay.

It's not you spent a little too much on your credit card. It is the fact that you were diagnosed with an illness that you were unaware of. It's you were, in an accident that you did not ask for. And then when you are in the hospital receiving the medical care, you are not given a choice of what sort of care you're going to receive and what the bill is going to be. You don't understand how much it's going to cost at a

given moment. You are standing there and then you are told, oh, by the way, this apparatus to keep you alive for the past four days is now going to cost you $80,000. So we feel that the way that this bill is set up, the way that national nonprofits have worked to forgive medical debt across the country could really benefit the folks of Hawaii and help get them back on strong economic track. I remain available for any questions you may have. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have on Zoom, AlohaCare. Not present. Not present in support though. And we have Gwen is there on Zoom in in opposition.

Go ahead, Aloha. Aloha for allowing me the opportunity to testify in strong opposition to this bill. And my opposition doesn't come from the the underlying desire to support individuals who have experienced medical debt because, as many of you know, I've experienced a lot of situations where I've incurred debt, and there's nowhere to be able to recoup from that. What I what I'm concerned about is that we're placing this awesome responsibility in the hands of an agency that thinks that it can solve too many problems. So the Office of Wellness and Resilience is a political construct.

It's not a it's it's it's it's made at the will of the governor. So we don't even know if this particular political entity is gonna survive. We don't know the expertise of their group. So far, they've engaged in trying to explore the peer specialist program, which hasn't gone anywhere. They've dealt with CWS through Malama Ohana, and what I hear is that much of it is geared toward what the nonprofits wanted, not what the families themselves were giving in terms of their mana'o.

And now they wanna get into the realm of medical debt. So from my from my observation, it's not clear that the Office of Wellness and Resilience is actually the office that should be handling this responsibility. Yes. There needs to be a vehicle to be able to help people, but I don't think that this particular political construct is the correct vehicle. And I'm particularly concerned because I feel like there are key communications individuals there who were previously advised not to make a declaration that Hawaii was a trauma informed state.

They were given that advice by a expert in the field of trauma informed policies, and yet they went ahead and did that. So we can't trust their their judgment when they

Can I ask you to wrap up your comments, please?

Yes. I'm just saying that I don't think that the Office of Wellness and Visayas is the office that needs to be tasked with this responsibility. So I urge the, committee members to really look carefully and examine whether or not, there's a cost to benefit for this particular measure. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in person or on Zoom wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none, we had comments from the state procurement office, and we had support from Hawaii Healthcare Association of Hawaii, Hoa LoHA project, Hawaii data collaborative, Leeds Health Systems, American Cancer Society, Hawaii Public Health Institute, HP and Building Supply, and Mana Up, Hawaii Appleseed, Hawaii State Rural Health Association, and a handful of individuals. Members, are there any questions for our test players?

Question, Chair. Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. For the office of wellness and resilience, please. Thank you for being here and for your testimony. My question is, the bill says at this point, help families who qualify, and that would be those who are household income less than or or equal to 400% of the federal poverty level. How many families or residents, would this help here in Hawaii?

And do you have a cost amount that this bill would require? I know it's blank right now, but what would be the cost to to to fully implement this medical debt, payment?

Yeah. Thank you for that question. So in Hawaii, it looks like there's about 50,000 residents that would be impacted by abolishing about $91,000,000 of medical debt that would cost an allocation of 5 about 500,000. So 500,000 to abolish about $91,000,000 that affect about 50,000 residents.

So $500,000 for the administration of this?

Correct.

And then $91,000,000 to pay for the medical debt.

No. 91 bill million dollars is the medical debt.

Is the medical

debt. How much it would

Got it.

Would abolish. That's how much 5,500,000 would abolish. Okay. Got it.

Thank you very much.

I have a question.

So yeah. So you mentioned that you would need funds to to run this program. Is that in the bill? And and if not, what how much do you think you would need?

We don't need our office. I have a procurement and contract specialist with us. She would be managed it would be a contract. So it wouldn't be any money coming to our office to run the program. It would be a contract through the office to

And and how much do you think you would need?

So the 500,000 is what would go straight to the contract to

But isn't the 500,000 actually paying off the debt itself?

Correct. So it's bundled do you wanna do you wanna answer?

I'll give you a few if you could explain how it works. I see. Just because you said you wouldn't then subject to availability of funds, So I'm like so the funds you were talking about is the contract funds. Debt. Yeah. The funds to Okay. Not any additional administrative funds. Okay. This is we already

have positions here we can do the work in. Okay. Fantastic. Thank you. And and that would be something that needs to get allocated annually depending on what the amount of medical debt is to be on that contract?

So the the the provision that we were asking for was to say availability of funds. So it would be this this is looking at the 500,000 is looking at a one time payment. Right. And that so the program would be if there's funds available in the state. Okay.

If there's no funds available, then the program would go unfunded. But if there's funds that become available in the future, then there would be allocation we would be asking for allocation to continue to do this. This is a one time payment.

Okay. Thank you very much. Members, any other questions? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move on to our next measure, SB 2761, SD 2. This was a ban on social media for users under 16 years of age. And we have, first up, is DCCA, here for this measure.

Good morning, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committees. I'm Raji Tolentino with the Office of Consumer Protection. We will stand on our comments on bring—I mean, stand on our testimony offering comments. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have on Zoom, the Attorney General. Are they present?

Or so, in person, even better. You guys always put Zoom.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Ashley Tanaka. I'm a Deputy Attorney General.

The department did submit comments. We do appreciate the purpose of this bill. In our comments, we did point out an area that has potential first amendment concerns, and we did offer an amendment—a suggested amendment. And then, we did also print out a potential over-broadness issue with the current definition of social media platform and did also offer a proposed amendment. I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have, in person, David Louie in opposition.

Aloha, Chair Marten, Chair Takayama. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm David Louie. I serve as Former Attorney General under Abercrombie. I'm, I'm here on behalf of Meta in strong opposition to this bill.

We just think that this is the wrong way to go. Meta stands with lawmakers. We support positive online, safe experiences for youth. But we think that—and Meta has teen accounts that give the control to parents, allows parents to shut down how much a teen can, can look at their screens, down to fifteen minutes a day. And so, it's done that.

But a ban, on social media across the board, we think is the wrong way to go, puts teens at greater risk when it comes to online safety. It has not worked in Australia. It forces teens into unsafe platforms. There are a lot of platforms that allow you to go on them without an account, and that would be bad. We think—we think that, that, if you're gonna pass this bill, you have to address that.

Also, this bill does not apparently address gaming platforms, which allow social interaction and chats. And so, you're gonna have all of this inconsistent kind of a problem with that. And so, as the Attorney General's—as previously commented that this was in the Senate, there are constitutional concerns and that is very concerned about that. So, we urge you to hold this bill and, and to defer it. It's the wrong way to go. I'm available for questions. Thank you very much.

Okay. Next up, we have in opposition on Zoom, NetChoice. Are you present? Please go ahead.

Hi, members of the committee. My name is Amy Bos. I'm the Vice President of Government Affairs at NetChoice, a trade association supporting free speech and free enterprise. We respectfully oppose HB 2761. We share the goal of the sponsor, keeping young people safe online.

The question is whether this bill achieves that goal, and we believe it does not. The Supreme Court has been clear: minors have first amendment rights to access information and to speak. A blanket ban on social media for everyone 16 cuts off an entire group from modern channels of communication and public discourse. Laws like this are being blocked in other states, and this one will likely say suffer the same fate.

This bill only works if a platform can verify everyone's age, which means collecting sensitive personal data from all users, including adults. That creates exactly the kind of sweeping data collection that policymakers and consumers alike are increasingly concerned about. Third, the real world impact. Teens don't just use social media for entertainment. They use it to learn, build community, and find support.

For many young people, especially for those who feel isolated, online spaces are a lifeline. A blanket prohibition doesn't protect these kids; it disconnects them. We don't have to guess how this plays out. Australia enacted a similar ban for under 16.

Early reports show it's difficult to enforce, pushes teens to less moderated spaces, and raises new privacy concerns. And importantly, Australia does not have a first amendment. Even without constitutional bear barriers, the policy is struggling. Finally, parents have tools. Platform controls, supervision features, and digital literacy efforts give families real options.

This bill replaces parental judgment with a one-size-fits-all government government mandate. If the goal is to improve saf—safety—there are better paths. A sweeping ban is not a workable solution, and it will be challenged immediately. For these reasons, NetChoice urges you to hold the bill, and we respectfully oppose. Thank you for consideration of our comments.

Thank you for your testimony. Next up, we have, also on Zoom, Computer and Communications Industry Association, please.

Good morning, chairs, member of the committee. My name is Aiden Downey representing the Computer and Communications Industry Association. We're happy to stand on our written, submitted comments and echo some of the colleagues that you've heard before, some of their comments as well. But I did wanna highlight that that CCIA does share some unconstitutional con—or the constitutionality concerns about the bill. So, we, we respectfully ask you to hold Senate Bill 2761. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is Michael Golojuch on Zoom, in support, an individual?

Good morning. Michael Golojuch, Jr., he/him pronouns. After long consideration, I am gonna have to pull my support for this bill. I do, I do under—I do appreciate what it's trying to do and since David Louie's there, I do ask him to tell Meta they can and must do better by our young people.

There are problems out there, and Meta can do better, and they have done better in the past. But now that they are bootlicking to the fascist administration, they have they pulled all safeguards. I—like I said, I appreciate what this bill is intending to do. I have great concerns. Like I said, I have concerns, like I put in my written testimony.

I don't think this is—after a long consideration, I don't think this is the right vehicle for this to protect our keiki. I look forward to you all coming up with a better solution and forcing Meta and Twitter or whatever they're calling it these days to put on safeguards to make sure that our keiki do not go down rabbit holes, that do not get misinformation. Because we saw on January 6th what happens when you allow met—bad information, and that's for adults. So, while I appreciate the intent of this bill, unfortunately, I do have to pull my support, and I do ask that you defer this bill at this time. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else on Zoom or in person wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. We had written testimony in opposition from the Trevor Project, TechNet, comments from one individual, and opposition from another eight or so individuals. Members, are there any questions for our testifiers? Go ahead.

For Meta, please. Former AG, thanks for being here. You mentioned, I think, an example in in Australia when they tried to, I guess, ban minors from having access to social media or—what happened out there and what lessons could be learned from that?

So, so, it recently passed. It just passed last year and, they've been having some problems, a number of problems. One, Australia doesn't have a first amendment, so they're they don't have the same constitutional concerns that we have here. Two, however, they have—the evidence that we're getting is, is that it's forcing teens into unsafe platforms. There's a whole lot of platforms, and, and it's this is in my written testimony, where you can actually log on without an account.

And so, teens are logging on to these unsafe platforms without an account, and this man doesn't do anything about that, because you don't have to have an account. And so, you're forcing teens into—who are seeking community, seeking information, trying to learn about the world—and you're forcing them into potentially unsafe platforms with no parental controls and no parental input, and, and it's unsafe. So, we believe that it's not working and that there's a lot of loopholes in what they did so that teams could go on there and get unsafe experiences.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Members, any other questions? Go ahead, Chair.

For Consumer Protection. Hi. Thank you for being here. In your testimony, there was a brief references to enforcement. What are concerns in regards to enforcing a, a bill like this?

Well, for our office, enforcement—our part of the concern would be resources to, to enforce it. We don't have the techno—the technical expertise—to really look at the programming coding of companies that have that providers use their systems. So, we need resources.

Okay. Thank you.

And is there any other questions?

I have a question for the AG's Office. So, I really appreciate your testimony and your proposed amendments to address some of those concrete speech concerns. Have you folks—I don't know if you've had time or have looked at what states have done in banning—in not banning wholesale, but in having the ban be at the app per like, the app store level, like, for each individual app requiring parental consent, which is something I think a lot of states have done. You folks have a chance to look at that?

I'm not sure, but I can check. So, you're saying the app store made it?

Yeah. So, so, other seats have made, I mean, I just, Google Chrome did, and I found that other stores have found states have made bans that rather than being blanket at, they select, I guess, the known apps that are being used. And then, each, to, you know, download the app, like Instagram or Facebook or Snapchat or whatever, TikTok, then if they have a parental consent requirement at that level. And I just I'm thinking, maybe for our next committee if you folks could look into that a little bit and see whether it is effective in actually protecting kids or whether it's insufficient.

And, you know, in your opinion, I think that'd be useful as a conversation goes forward. Thanks so much. Appreciate it. Any other questions, members? Okay. Then we are going to move to decision making. Our first measure, SB 3025, SD 2, on medical debt. I recommend moving this forward, making very small amendments, just saying, subject to the availability of program funds for the contracts.

And then, also including in the committee report that the in order to buy the $91,000,000 of medical debt that's currently in found receipt, they would need $500,000 for this one time average. Members, are there any comments or questions? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote, please.

[Roll Call]

Same recommendation for the Committee on Health.

[Roll Call]

Oh, I assumed there are no questions. You're the same members. Okay. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. Or thank you for being here. Sorry. I got, I, I was confused on which ones with the joint. But so, the, that one was joint and this next one is, is Human Services.

So, for SB 2761, SD 2, clearly, this is a super important topic. It's, I see it in my children's network of friends. I see the problems here, but even standard social media accounts and just read an alarming article this morning in the New York Times about how mass shootings have transformed from being incidents involving people who are very isolated to incidents spurred by online platforms, which often are adults but have recently included two teens. So, clearly, we need to do something. I'd like to keep the conversation going and adopt the AG's recommendations to make sure that free speech is not infringed upon.

So, deleting Sub-Sections A and b on page four of line seven through 19 and replacing them with a new subsection that requires social media platforms to take reasonable steps to verify an individual's age before allowing them to create an account, take reasonable steps to verify the age of existing account holders, and not permit any individual the social media platform knows to be under the age of 16 to be an account holder unless the individual has the expressed consent of a parent or legal guardian. I'd also like to clarify the definition of social media platform because it is very broad and could include, like, cloud storage or ecommerce platforms. So, for the purpose of this section, social media platform will, in addition to the definition that has already—is in the current draft—add in and that primarily serves as a medium for users to interact with content generated by other users of the platform. So, the focus is on interaction with shared content rather than just commenting on commercial content. And in the committee report, I'd like to note as brought, brought up in this hearing, that gaming apps have social interaction features and should possibly also be included.

So, I'd like the next community to look into that. And also, note that other states have required parental consent at the app store level and, look into that as well as other potential paths forward. And then, also note in the committee report that if DC, this passes, DCCA will need resources to do enforcement. And with that, members, are there any comments or questions?

Comment, Chair. Thank you for the amendments. I think it makes the bill better. I still have problems with it. You know, I think the place that was brought up by Meta is, is credible. And I do think those amendments does make the bill just a bit better, but I do still have, had problems. I, I am happy to see that for, for once in this committee and in, in the, in the house, we're actually supporting parental supervision and rights. So, that's a good thing. But overall, no vote. Thank you.

Any other comments? Go ahead.

Chair, similarly, I also have concerns despite the recommended amendments, which I also believe does make the bill stronger. However, the unintended consequences is still something that I believe needs a lot of work on. And so, I also will be voting no. Thank you, Chair.

Any other comments or questions? Seeing none. Vice Chair chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. We are adjourned. And members, if you..