HB320 creates a new chapter in the Hawaii Revised Statutes establishing a legal framework for supported decision-making agreements for “qualified adults.” Qualified adults include adults with disabilities, mentally ill adults, and adults age 65 or older. The bill allows these individuals to voluntarily designate one or more trusted members of a “supportive community” to help them understand choices, gather and explain information, and communicate decisions, while preserving the adult’s own authority to make final decisions.
The bill sets out detailed requirements for these agreements, including that they be in writing, signed voluntarily before witnesses or a notary, and include specified terms about the scope of assistance, conflict mitigation, and abuse-reporting obligations. It also limits who may serve as a supporter by excluding people with confirmed abuse findings or certain criminal convictions, and it requires confidentiality and restricted use of personal information obtained through the agreement. The measure further provides that the existence of an agreement cannot be used as evidence of incapacity or incompetency, and it allows either party to terminate the agreement, with automatic termination in specified abuse or conviction situations.
Impact
HB320 would add a new statutory chapter governing supported decision-making agreements and would affect how adults with disabilities, mental illness, or age-related needs can lawfully obtain assistance without triggering guardianship or conservatorship. It interacts with existing guardianship and conservatorship law by expressly stating that these agreements do not diminish court-appointed authority, while also creating privacy, consent, and liability rules for third parties who rely on the agreement. The bill also references existing abuse-reporting provisions and federal privacy laws such as HIPAA and FERPA, and it creates potential criminal and civil liability for misuse of information obtained under the agreement.
Sentiment
The available voting history shows strong, unanimous support in committee and conference, with all recorded votes passing 3-0 or 4-0. That pattern suggests the bill was generally viewed favorably and as a practical consumer-protection and autonomy measure for vulnerable adults and older residents. The absence of recorded opposition in the provided materials indicates broad agreement on the bill’s core purpose and structure.
Contention
No committee transcript is available, so specific objections are not documented in the provided record. Based on the bill text, the main areas that could generate concern are the privacy and access provisions, the limits on who may serve as a supporter, and the interaction with guardianship or conservatorship authority. Another possible point of concern is the abuse-reporting and liability framework, which imposes duties and consequences on people relying on the agreement, but no recorded opposition appears in the vote history provided.