HB 911 — An Act amending Title 53 (Municipalities Generally) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in employees, providing for law enforcement officer benefits for surviving family members.
Last action — Re-committed to Rules
-
✓Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed House
-
4Passed Senate
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill is in committee in the House. Introduced March 17, 2025. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
Next likely step: a committee vote, then a floor vote in the House.
Odds of enactment
Low chanceBased on the sponsor, cosponsors, and committee posture, this bill has a low chance of becoming law.
Upgrade to see the exact probability and what's driving it.
A statistical estimate from our own model of past outcomes — an insight, not a guarantee. Policymaking is volatile.
Prognosis
-
In Committee
Current position in the legislative process.
-
14 sponsors
1 primary, 13 co-sponsors signed on.
-
Bipartisan support
Sponsored across 2 parties (13 D · 1 R) — cross-party backing.
-
Cleared a recorded vote
Passed 2 recorded votes so far.
Based on stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes, and cross-state momentum — a description of the observable signals, not a prediction.
In plain language
This bill provides benefits to the families of deceased law enforcement officers.
The bill amends existing laws to offer benefits to the surviving family members of law enforcement officers who have died. This aims to support families left behind after such losses.
What this means for you
- Families: This means families of fallen law enforcement officers may receive financial support during a difficult time.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
114 added · 62 removedPlain-language change summary
The revised version of Bill HB 911 includes a significant change regarding health benefits for law enforcement officers. It now specifies that if an officer is disabled and unable to perform any police duty due to an accident related to their work, both the officer and their spouse will receive full health benefits for life, which strengthens their support during tough times. Additionally, the bill clarifies eligibility for dependents to receive benefits until age 26, making it clearer which children can be covered. This matters because it ensures more comprehensive support for officers and their families when they face disabilities or uncertainties in their careers.
PRIOR PRINTER'S NO.
961 THEPRINTER'S GENERALNO. ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE BILL Session of No.
9113627 2025THE INTRODUCEDGENERAL BYASSEMBLY MEHAFFIE,OF CERRATO,PENNSYLVANIA CIRESI,HOUSE DEASY,BILL DONAHUESession ANDof D.No.
WILLIAMS,911 MARCH 17, 2025 REFERREDINTRODUCED TOBY COMMITTEEMEHAFFIE, ONCERRATO, LOCALCIRESI, GOVERNMENT,DEASY, MARCHDONAHUE, 17,D. 2025 AN ACT Amending Title 53 (Municipalities Generally) of the Pennsylvania enforcement officer benefits for surviving family members.
WILLIAMS, K.
HARRIS, MUNROE, BRENNAN, T.
DAVIS, GOUGHNOUR, STEELE, NEILSON AND GREEN, MARCH 17, 2025 AS REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AS AMENDED, JUNE 17, 2026 AN ACT Amending Title 53 (Municipalities Generally) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in employees, providing for law enforcement officer benefits for surviving family members.
(b) Disability.--If a full-time law enforcement officer is disabled AND UNABLE TO PERFORM ANY POLICE DUTY FOR WHICH THE <-- OFFICER IS REASONABLY SUITED BY EDUCATION, TRAINING OR EXPERIENCE from an accident occurring as a result of the performance of duties while employed:
(ii) The Department of General Services in accordance with the act of June 24, 1976 (P.L.424, No.101), referred to as the Emergency and Law Enforcement 20250HB0911PN3627 - 2 - Personnel Death Benefits Act.
(iii) The Bureau of Justice Assistance within the United States Department of Justice in accordance with 34 20250HB0911PN0961 - 2 - U.S.C.
(d) Assistance.--A municipality OR REGIONAL POLICE <-- DEPARTMENT shall assist a surviving spouse with navigating the process of claims and payments under this section.
(e) Termination of benefits.--All health benefits under this <-- section shall cease upon the recipient of the health care benefits reaching 65 years of age.
(E) TERMINATION OF BENEFITS.--A MUNICIPALITY MAY TERMINATE <-- HEALTH BENEFITS UNDER THIS SECTION IF:
(1) A SURVIVING SPOUSE OF A DECEASED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER REMARRIES;
OR (2) A SURVIVING SPOUSE RECEIVES EQUIVALENT HEALTH BENEFITS FROM THE SURVIVING SPOUSE'S EMPLOYER.
(F) MEDICARE ELIGIBILITY.--WHEN A RECIPIENT OF HEALTH BENEFITS UNDER THIS SECTION IS ENTITLED TO OR ENROLLED IN MEDICARE:
(1) THE RECIPIENT SHALL UTILIZE THE FEDERAL MEDICARE 20250HB0911PN3627 - 3 - PROGRAM AS THE RECIPIENT'S PRIMARY HEALTH BENEFIT.
(2) IN THE CASE OF A SURVIVING SPOUSE OF A DECEASED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO SERVED A MUNICIPALITY, THE MUNICIPALITY SHALL PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL MEDICARE PROGRAM COVERAGE THROUGH THE CARRIER PROVIDING COVERAGE AT THE TIME OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DEATH.
(3) IN THE CASE OF A SURVIVING SPOUSE OF A DECEASED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO SERVED A REGIONAL POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE REGIONAL POLICE DEPARTMENT SHALL PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL MEDICARE PROGRAM COVERAGE THROUGH THE CARRIER PROVIDING COVERAGE AT THE TIME OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DEATH.
(G) APPLICABILITY.--IN ADDITION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WHO DIED IN THE LINE OF DUTY:
(1) SUBSECTION (A) SHALL APPLY TO A SURVIVING SPOUSE OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO DIED IN THE LINE OF DUTY, IF THE SURVIVING SPOUSE WAS WIDOWED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SUBSECTION.
(2) SUBSECTION (B) SHALL APPLY TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO BECAME DISABLED AND THE SPOUSE OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO BECAME DISABLED, IF THE DISABILITY OCCURRED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SUBSECTION.
"Law enforcement officer." As the term "police officer" is <-- defined in section 2162 (relating to definitions).
"FULL HEALTH BENEFITS." THE SAME LEVEL OF HEALTH INSURANCE <-- COVERAGE FROM THE SAME CARRIER THAT A SURVIVING SPOUSE OR DEPENDENT RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DEATH.
20250HB0911PN3627 - 4 - "LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER." A FULL-TIME OR PART-TIME EMPLOYEE ASSIGNED TO CRIMINAL OR TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT DUTIES OF:
(1) A POLICE DEPARTMENT OF A MUNICIPALITY;
OR (2) A REGIONAL POLICE DEPARTMENT.
"MEDICARE." HEALTH BENEFITS PROVIDED UNDER 42 U.S.C.
CH.
7 SUBCH.
XVIII (RELATING TO HEALTH INSURANCE FOR AGED AND DISABLED).
"REGIONAL POLICE DEPARTMENT." A POLICE DEPARTMENT FORMED BY <-- TWO OR MORE MUNICIPALITIES UNDER SUBCHAPTER A OF CHAPTER 23 (RELATING TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION).
20250HB0911PN096120250HB0911PN3627 - 35 -
Action History
-
Re-committed to Rules
-
First consideration
-
Reported as amended
-
Referred to Local Government
Sponsors
- Thomas L. Mehaffie · Primary
- Melissa Cerrato · Cosponsor
- Joe Ciresi · Cosponsor
- Daniel J. Deasy · Cosponsor
- Kyle Donahue · Cosponsor
- Dan K. Williams · Cosponsor
- Keith S. Harris · Cosponsor
- Brian Munroe · Cosponsor
- Tim Brennan · Cosponsor
- Tina M. Davis · Cosponsor
- Dan Goughnour · Cosponsor
- Mandy Steele · Cosponsor
- Ed Neilson · Cosponsor
- G. Roni Green · Cosponsor
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 13 co-sponsors · 239 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Thomas L. Mehaffie Republican
Co-sponsors (13)
- Melissa Cerrato Democratic
- Joe Ciresi Democratic
- Daniel J. Deasy Democratic
- Kyle Donahue Democratic
- Dan K. Williams Democratic
- Keith S. Harris Democratic
- Brian Munroe Democratic
- Tim Brennan Democratic
- Tina M. Davis Democratic
- Dan Goughnour Democratic
- Mandy Steele Democratic
- Ed Neilson Democratic
- G. Roni Green Democratic
Not signed on (239)
239 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 239 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 26 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (26)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Abigail Salisbury | Democratic | Yea |
| Brian Munroe | Democratic | Yea |
| Carol Kazeem | Democratic | Yea |
| Christina D. Sappey | Democratic | Yea |
| Dave Madsen | Democratic | Yea |
| Ismail Smith-Wade-El | Democratic | Yea |
| Jim Haddock | Democratic | Yea |
| Jim Prokopiak | Democratic | Yea |
| Justin C. Fleming | Democratic | Yea |
| Kyle Donahue | Democratic | Yea |
| Lisa A. Borowski | Democratic | Yea |
| Liz Hanbidge | Democratic | Yea |
| Robert Freeman | Democratic | Yea |
| Tarah Probst | Democratic | Yea |
| Alec J. Ryncavage | Republican | Yea |
| Andrew Kuzma | Republican | Yea |
| Brett R. Miller | Republican | Yea |
| Chad G. Reichard | Republican | Yea |
| Eric J. Weaknecht | Republican | Yea |
| George H Margetas | Republican | Yea |
| Jacob D. Banta | Republican | Yea |
| Jill N. Cooper | Republican | Yea |
| Parke Wentling | Republican | Yea |
| Roman Kozak | Republican | Yea |
| Tom Jones | Republican | Yea |
| Wendy Fink | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 26 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (26)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Abigail Salisbury | Democratic | Yea |
| Brian Munroe | Democratic | Yea |
| Carol Kazeem | Democratic | Yea |
| Christina D. Sappey | Democratic | Yea |
| Dave Madsen | Democratic | Yea |
| Ismail Smith-Wade-El | Democratic | Yea |
| Jim Haddock | Democratic | Yea |
| Jim Prokopiak | Democratic | Yea |
| Justin C. Fleming | Democratic | Yea |
| Kyle Donahue | Democratic | Yea |
| Lisa A. Borowski | Democratic | Yea |
| Liz Hanbidge | Democratic | Yea |
| Robert Freeman | Democratic | Yea |
| Tarah Probst | Democratic | Yea |
| Alec J. Ryncavage | Republican | Yea |
| Andrew Kuzma | Republican | Yea |
| Brett R. Miller | Republican | Yea |
| Chad G. Reichard | Republican | Yea |
| Eric J. Weaknecht | Republican | Yea |
| George H Margetas | Republican | Yea |
| Jacob D. Banta | Republican | Yea |
| Jill N. Cooper | Republican | Yea |
| Parke Wentling | Republican | Yea |
| Roman Kozak | Republican | Yea |
| Tom Jones | Republican | Yea |
| Wendy Fink | Republican | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- Who sponsors HB 911?
- HB 911 is sponsored by Thomas L. Mehaffie (Republican), Melissa Cerrato (Democratic), Joe Ciresi (Democratic), Daniel J. Deasy (Democratic), Kyle Donahue (Democratic), Dan K. Williams (Democratic), Keith S. Harris (Democratic), Brian Munroe (Democratic), Tim Brennan (Democratic), Tina M. Davis (Democratic), Dan Goughnour (Democratic), Mandy Steele (Democratic), Ed Neilson (Democratic), and G. Roni Green (Democratic).
- What is the current status of HB 911?
- This bill is in committee in the House. Introduced March 17, 2025. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
- Where can I track HB 911?
- Track HB 911 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on HB 911
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of HB 911
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →