HB1974 requires the Hawaii State Health Planning and Development Agency to develop and publish a statewide plan on hearing loss. The bill frames hearing loss as a significant public health issue affecting children, working-age adults, and kupuna, and it directs the agency to assess current policies and data, identify gaps in screening and early detection, examine access to hearing care and assistive technology, and evaluate related issues such as cognitive decline, dementia, mental health, and fall risk.
The plan must also include recommendations to improve affordability, communication access, workforce training, tele-audiology, and community outreach. The agency may consult with community organizations, health care providers, audiologists, speech-language pathologists, and people with hearing loss. An initial plan is due before the 2027 regular session, with update reports due before each odd-numbered regular session thereafter.
The bill adds a new section to chapter 323D, Hawaii Revised Statutes, creating an ongoing planning and reporting duty for the State Health Planning and Development Agency on hearing loss. It also appropriates $100,000 for fiscal year 2026-2027 to support development, stakeholder engagement, expert consultation, drafting, and publication of the initial state plan. The measure does not directly mandate coverage or benefits, but it is intended to inform future policy, program, and legislative changes affecting hearing screening, audiology services, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and communication access.
The bill appears to have broad support and little visible opposition. It passed the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, Senate Ways and Means, and conference committees unanimously, with votes of 4-0, 13-0, 2-0, and 4-0 respectively. The lack of recorded dissent suggests general agreement that hearing loss warrants a coordinated statewide response and that the planning appropriation is appropriate.
No major points of contention are reflected in the available record. The bill’s main policy choices are to create a planning process rather than immediate service mandates, and to fund the agency with a relatively modest appropriation. Any potential debate would likely center on the scope of the plan, the use of state funds, and whether the state should move beyond planning to direct service or coverage requirements, but those concerns are not documented in the provided materials.