Wisconsin Assembly Bill AB699

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 11/26/25
• Refer: 11/26/25
• Report Pass: 1/14/26
• Refer: 1/14/26
• Engrossed: 1/20/26
• Refer: 1/23/26
• Refer: 1/29/26
• Enrolled: 2/19/26
• Chaptered: 4/9/26
• Passed: 4/9/26

Caption

An Act to amend 71.05 (6) (a) 15., 71.10 (4) (i), 71.21 (4) (a), 71.21 (6) (d) 3., 71.26 (2) (a) 4., 71.30 (3) (f), 71.34 (1k) (g), 71.365 (4m) (d) 2., 71.45 (2) (a) 10., 71.49 (1) (f), 76.67 (1), 76.67 (2), 646.11 (2), 646.51 (3) (am), 646.51 (4) (a) and 646.51 (7) (b); to create 20.835 (2) (de), 71.07 (12), 71.10 (4) (co), 71.28 (12), 71.30 (3) (dh), 71.47 (12), 71.49 (1) (dh), 76.633, 646.03 (3m), 646.51 (3) (bm) and 646.51 (7) (bm) of the statutes; Relating to: a long-term care insurance assessment and a long-term care insurance assessment tax credit. (FE)

Impact

The implementation of AB699 would likely lead to changes in state regulations concerning long-term care insurance providers and recipients. The assessed revenue generated from the new long-term care insurance assessment could provide additional resources for state-funded health programs, specifically targeting long-term care needs. Advocates believe that this would enhance the capacity of the state to support its elderly and disabled populations, aligning with broader healthcare objectives.

Summary

AB699 proposes a framework for a long-term care insurance assessment alongside a related tax credit. This bill is aimed at improving the financial support available for long-term care services, responding to the growing needs of an aging population. By introducing an assessment, the bill seeks to establish a sustainable funding mechanism that would help cover the costs associated with long-term care for individuals, thereby promoting wider access to necessary services.

Contention

However, discussions around AB699 may highlight points of contention. Opponents may argue that the new assessment could result in increased costs for policyholders, thereby placing additional financial burdens on those seeking long-term care insurance. Critics might also raise concerns regarding the adequacy of the tax credit proposed in conjunction with the assessment, questioning whether it would sufficiently offset the added costs associated with the new requirements. There may also be debates over the effectiveness of state oversight of long-term care funding mechanisms, given past challenges in managing healthcare funds successfully.