To amend sections 113.51, 113.53, and 113.56 of the Revised Code regarding Ohio ABLE accounts and to make an appropriation.
HB193 revises Ohio’s ABLE account statutes, which govern tax-advantaged savings accounts for individuals with disabilities. The bill updates the Treasurer of State’s authority to administer the program, including program design, federal compliance, account management, reporting, fee collection, marketing, and rulemaking. It also expressly requires the state to pay all monthly fees associated with an ABLE account on behalf of the account owner or beneficiary, and creates a dedicated appropriation to subsidize those fees.
The bill also makes several operational and eligibility-related changes to account rules. It preserves the one-account-per-beneficiary structure, contribution limits, reporting requirements, and restrictions on using an ABLE account as loan collateral. It clarifies that ABLE account funds are exempt from attachment, execution, and garnishment, and generally not subject to Medicaid estate recovery unless federal law requires otherwise. The bill further states that ABLE account information held by the Treasurer is not a public record, and it expands the statutory treatment of ABLE assets for certain state and local means-tested public assistance programs by requiring those assets, contributions, and qualified distributions to be disregarded in eligibility and benefit calculations.
HB193 also revises the governance structure of the STABLE account program advisory board. It maintains a nine-member board with legislative, executive, disability-advocacy, service-provider, parent, disability, and finance/accounting representation, and it adds detailed provisions allowing remote participation by video conference or teleconference under specified public-meeting safeguards. The board’s duties remain advisory and oversight-oriented, including reviewing the Treasurer’s work, making recommendations, and issuing annual reports to state leaders.
The bill’s fiscal component appropriates $900,000 in each of fiscal years 2026 and 2027 from the STABLE Maintenance Fee Subsidy line item to offset monthly account fees for eligible individuals with disabilities. In practical terms, the bill would reduce out-of-pocket costs for ABLE account holders and strengthen the program’s accessibility, while also embedding the subsidy directly into state law and the state budget structure.
Because the bill was only introduced and no committee testimony or votes are available, the overall sentiment cannot be measured from recorded debate. Based on the bill text, the measure appears broadly supportive of disability savings access and fee relief. The main potential points of contention are likely to be the ongoing state cost of subsidizing account fees, the scope of the new public-assistance disregard rules, and the confidentiality treatment of ABLE account information, though no specific opposition is documented in the available materials.
HB193 would amend Revised Code sections 113.51, 113.53, and 113.56 to change how Ohio’s ABLE/STABLE account program is administered, including Treasurer of State duties, account rules, confidentiality, and advisory board operations. It would also create a recurring appropriation of $900,000 in each of fiscal years 2026 and 2027 for a STABLE Maintenance Fee Subsidy, shifting monthly account fee costs away from eligible account holders and onto the state. The bill would affect ABLE account owners and beneficiaries, their trustees or guardians, the Treasurer of State, the STABLE advisory board, and administrators of state and local means-tested public assistance programs.
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to measure. On the face of the bill, the policy direction is favorable toward people with disabilities and ABLE account holders, because it lowers account maintenance costs, preserves tax-advantaged savings protections, and broadens the disregard of ABLE assets for certain state benefit programs. Any skepticism would likely center on fiscal cost and administrative changes rather than the underlying purpose of the program.
No specific contention is documented in the available transcripts or votes. The most likely areas of debate are fiscal and administrative: whether the state should permanently subsidize monthly ABLE fees, whether the new appropriations are justified, how broadly ABLE assets should be excluded from means-tested eligibility determinations, and whether the bill’s confidentiality provisions appropriately limit public access to account information. If opposition emerges, it would likely come from budget-focused lawmakers or administrators concerned about cost and implementation, while disability advocates and ABLE account users would likely support the measure.