Relating To Healthcare Preceptors.
HB876 expands Hawaii’s healthcare preceptor income tax credit by broadening both who can qualify as a student and who can qualify as a preceptor. Under current law, the credit is intended to encourage volunteer clinical supervision for certain health professions, but the bill states that the existing primary-care-focused criteria have limited participation. The measure responds to workforce shortages and a lack of clinical training sites by extending the credit to additional fields that rely on supervised clinical training.
Specifically, the bill adds psychology, physician assistant, marriage and family therapy, mental health counseling, clinical social work, rehabilitation counseling, and school counseling students to the definition of “eligible student.” It also expands the definition of “preceptor” to include licensed psychologists, physician assistants, marriage and family therapists, mental health counselors, clinical social workers, rehabilitation counselors, and school counselors, so long as they are Hawaii residents maintaining a professional practice in the state and their specialty supports training of eligible students. The bill also updates related definitions such as “eligible professional degree or training certificate,” “academic program,” and “volunteer-based supervised clinical training rotation.”
The bill’s practical impact would be to make the tax credit available to a wider range of health and behavioral health training relationships, potentially increasing the number of clinicians willing to supervise students and residents. It would amend section 235-110.25 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, affecting the state income tax credit framework rather than creating a new program. The bill applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025, so any fiscal effect would begin in the 2026 tax year.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is supportive and workforce-oriented. The findings emphasize provider shortages, projected retirements, and limited clinical education capacity, and frame the expansion as a way to strengthen Hawaii’s health care pipeline. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no additional evidence of opposition or support beyond the bill’s stated rationale.
The main point of contention suggested by the text is not whether the credit should exist, but how broad it should be. The bill explicitly notes that the prior version’s primary care criterion limited eligibility and that specialty preceptors are also needed for training in multiple professions. Another technical issue is that several accreditation references for the newly added student categories are left blank in the bill text, which may indicate drafting work still needed before enactment.
HB876 would amend Hawaii Revised Statutes section 235-110.25, expanding the healthcare preceptor income tax credit to cover additional professions and training programs. It would add new categories of eligible students and preceptors in psychology, physician assistant, marriage and family therapy, mental health counseling, clinical social work, rehabilitation counseling, and school counseling, thereby broadening the pool of tax-credit-eligible clinical supervision arrangements. The bill would apply beginning with taxable years after December 31, 2025, affecting future state income tax filings and potentially increasing the number of claims for the credit.
The bill appears generally favorable and expansion-oriented. Its findings describe a statewide health workforce shortage, limited clinical training capacity, and the need to incentivize more volunteer preceptors, suggesting a policy goal of strengthening the pipeline for multiple health and behavioral health professions. Because no committee discussion transcripts or votes were provided, there is no documented opposition or recorded debate in the supplied materials, but the bill itself signals that the current credit is viewed as too narrow and in need of modernization.
The primary policy issue is the scope of the tax credit: the bill expands eligibility beyond physicians, advanced practice registered nurses, and pharmacists to a broader set of behavioral health and allied professions. Supporters would likely argue that this is necessary to address workforce shortages and clinical placement bottlenecks, while any critics could question the fiscal cost of a larger credit or whether the expanded list remains sufficiently tied to primary care training. A drafting-related issue is that the bill leaves several accreditation standards blank for the newly added student categories, which may need clarification before implementation.