SB 5993 — Prohibiting interest charges for new and unpaid medical debt.
Last action — By resolution, returned to Senate Rules Committee for third reading.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed House
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill has passed the Senate. Introduced January 06, 2026. It now moves to the second chamber.
Next likely step: consideration and a floor vote in the House.
Odds of enactment
Moderate chanceBased on the sponsor, cosponsors, and committee posture, this bill has a moderate 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
-
Passed Senate
Current position in the legislative process.
-
16 sponsors
1 primary, 15 co-sponsors signed on.
-
Single-party support
Sponsorship is currently within one party (16 D).
-
Mixed recorded votes
1 passed, 1 failed in 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.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
213 added · 61 removedPlain-language change summary
The changes to Senate Bill 5993 now prohibit charging any interest on new and unpaid medical debts starting after December 31, 2026. This is a shift from the previous version, which aimed to lower interest rates on medical debt rather than eliminate them altogether. This change is important because it helps ensure that individuals struggling with medical bills won't be burdened by accumulating interest, ultimately making it easier for them to repay their debts without facing increasing financial pressure.
ENGROSSEDS-3585.1 SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5993 (Corrected Copy) State of Washington 69th Legislature 2026 Regular Session By Senate Law & Justice (originally sponsored by Senators Alvarado, Riccelli, Bateman, Conway, Frame, Hasegawa, Liias, Lovelett, Lovick, Nobles, Orwall, Slatter, Stanford, Trudeau, Valdez, and C.
Wilson)Wilson READPrefiled FIRST01/06/26. TIME 01/23/26.
ANRead ACTfirst Relatingtime to01/12/26. lowering the interest rate for medical debt;
andReferred amendingto RCWCommittee 19.52.010.on Law & Justice.
AN ACT Relating to prohibiting interest charges for new and unpaid medical debt;
and amending RCW 19.52.010, 6.17.020, 4.56.190, and 4.56.210.
(2)(a)(2)(((a) ((Prejudgment))Prejudgment Forinterest)) anyInterest medical debt accrued after December 31, 2026, interest may not be charged or collected ((on))on innew excessor ofunpaid amedical simpledebt((, interestas ratedefined ofin oneRCW percent per year on new p.
1 ESSBSB 5993 medical debt, as defined in RCW 19.16.100, ((mustmust not exceed nine percent)) whetherafter beforethe oreffective afterdate entry of judgment.this section.
(b)(((b) ((ForFor any medical debt for which prejudgment interest has accrued or may be accruing as of July 28, 2019, no prejudgment interest in excess of nine percent shall accrue thereafter))thereafter.)) Notwithstanding(3) subsectionA (a)lease ofshall this section, interest may not be chargedconsidered ora collectedloan onor medicalforbearance debtfor duringthe anypurposes periodof inthis which:chapter if:
(i) The hospital has not completed any required charity care screening and initial determination conducted in compliance with chapter 70.170 RCW;
(ii) The medical debt is later determined to be invalid or not lawfully owed;
or (iii) The medical debt is later determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or by operation of law to be not legally enforceable.
(c) If a medical debt is later reduced or eliminated under chapter 70.170 RCW, or is later determined to be invalid, not lawfully owed, or not legally enforceable, any interest charged or collected on or after the effective date of this section on the portion of the medical debt reduced or eliminated is void and must be refunded.
(3) A lease shall not be considered a loan or forbearance for the purposes of this chapter if:
Sec.
2.
RCW 6.17.020 and 2022 c 260 s 5 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (4) of this section, the party in whose favor a judgment of a court has been or may be filed or rendered, or the assignee or the current holder thereof, may have an execution, garnishment, or other legal process issued for the collection or enforcement of the judgment at any time within 10 years from entry of the judgment or the filing of the judgment in this state.
(2) After July 23, 1989, a party who obtains a judgment or order of a court or an administrative order entered as defined in RCW 74.20A.020(6) for accrued child support, or the assignee or the current holder thereof, may have an execution, garnishment, or other legal process issued upon that judgment or order at any time within 10 years of the 18th birthday of the youngest child named in the order for whom support is ordered.
(3) After June 9, 1994, a party in whose favor a judgment has been filed as a foreign judgment or rendered pursuant to subsection (1) or (4) of this section, or the assignee or the current holder thereof, may, within 90 days before the expiration of the original 10-year period, apply to the court that rendered the judgment or to p.
2 SB 5993 the court where the judgment was filed as a foreign judgment for an order granting an additional 10 years during which an execution, garnishment, or other legal process may be issued.
If a district court judgment of this state is transcribed to a superior court of this state, the original district court judgment shall not be extended and any petition under this section to extend the judgment that has been transcribed to superior court shall be filed in the superior court within 90 days before the expiration of the 10-year period of the date the transcript of the district court judgment was filed in the superior court of this state.
The petitioner shall pay to the court a filing fee equal to the filing fee for filing the first or initial paper in a civil action in the court, except in the case of district court judgments transcribed to superior court, where the filing fee shall be the fee for filing the first or initial paper in a civil action in the superior court where the judgment was transcribed.
The order granting the application shall contain an updated judgment summary as provided in RCW 4.64.030.
The filing fee required under this subsection shall be included in the judgment summary and shall be a recoverable cost.
The application shall be granted as a matter of right, subject to review only for timeliness, factual issues of full or partial satisfaction, or errors in calculating the judgment summary amounts.
(4)(a) A party who obtains a judgment or order for restitution pursuant to a criminal judgment and sentence, or the assignee or the current holder thereof, may execute, garnish, and/or have legal process issued upon the judgment or order any time within 10 years subsequent to the entry of the judgment and sentence or 10 years following the offender's release from total confinement as provided in chapter 9.94A RCW.
The clerk of (([the])) the superior court, or a party designated by the clerk, may seek extension under subsection (3) of this section for purposes of collection as allowed under RCW 36.18.190, provided that no filing fee shall be required.
(b) A party who obtains a judgment or order for court-ordered legal financial obligations other than restitution, pursuant to a criminal judgment and sentence, or the assignee or the current holder thereof, may execute, garnish, and have legal process issued upon the judgment or order any time within 10 years subsequent to the entry of the judgment and sentence or 10 years following the offender's release from total confinement as provided in chapter 9.94A RCW.
The clerk of (([the])) the superior court, or a party designated by the p.
3 SB 5993 clerk, may seek extension under subsection (3) of this section for purposes of collection as allowed under RCW 36.18.190, only if the court finds that the offender has the current or likely future ability to pay the nonrestitution legal financial obligations.
A person does not have the current ability to pay if the person is indigent as defined in RCW 10.01.160(3).
No filing fee shall be required for filing a petition for an extension pursuant to this subsection (4)(b).
(5) "Court" as used in this section includes but is not limited to the United States supreme court, the United States courts of appeals, the United States district courts, the United States bankruptcy courts, the Washington state supreme court, the court of appeals of the state of Washington, superior courts and district courts of the counties of the state of Washington, and courts of other states and jurisdictions from which judgment has been filed in this state under chapter 6.36 ((or 6.40)) RCW.
(6) The perfection of any judgment lien and the priority of that judgment lien on property as established by RCW 6.13.090 and chapter 4.56 RCW is not altered by the extension of the judgment pursuant to the provisions of this section and the lien remains in full force and effect and does not have to be rerecorded after it is extended.
Continued perfection of a judgment that has been transcribed to other counties and perfected in those counties may be accomplished after extension of the judgment by filing with the clerk of the other counties where the judgment has been filed either a certified copy of the order extending the judgment or a certified copy of the docket of the matter where the judgment was extended.
(7) Except as ordered in RCW 4.16.020 (2) or (3), chapter 9.94A RCW, or chapter 13.40 RCW, no judgment is enforceable for a period exceeding 20 years from the date of entry in the originating court.
Nothing in this section may be interpreted to extend the expiration date of a foreign judgment beyond the expiration date under the laws of the jurisdiction where the judgment originated.
(8) The chapter 261, Laws of 2002 amendments to this section apply to all judgments currently in effect on June 13, 2002, to all judgments extended after June 9, 1994, unless the judgment has been satisfied, vacated, and/or quashed, and to all judgments filed or rendered, or both, after June 13, 2002.
(9) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, if a judgment includes any amount of medical debt as defined in RCW p.
Show all 64 changed lines (24 more)
4 SB 5993 19.16.100, execution, garnishment, or any other legal process for enforcement of the judgment may be issued only within six years from the date of entry.
(a) The extension procedure authorized under subsection (3) of this section does not apply to judgments that include medical debt as defined in RCW 19.16.100.
(b) After expiration of the six-year period, the judgment is unenforceable and no execution, garnishment, renewal, revival, or other legal process may issue.
(c) A judgment includes medical debt if any portion of the principal amount of the judgment at the time of entry consists of medical debt as defined in RCW 19.16.100.
Sec.
3.
RCW 4.56.190 and 2011 c 106 s 4 are each amended to read as follows:
The real estate of any judgment debtor, and such as the judgment debtor may acquire, not exempt by law, shall be held and bound to satisfy any judgment of the district court of the United States rendered in this state and any judgment of the supreme court, court of appeals, superior court, or district court of this state, and every such judgment shall be a lien thereupon to commence as provided in RCW 4.56.200 and to run for a period of not to exceed ten years from the day on which such judgment was entered unless the ten-year period is extended in accordance with RCW 6.17.020(3), or unless the judgment results from a criminal sentence for a crime that was committed on or after July 1, 2000, in which case the lien will remain in effect until the judgment is fully satisfied.
As used in this chapter, real estate shall not include the vendor's interest under a real estate contract for judgments rendered after August 23, 1983.
If a judgment debtor owns real estate, subject to execution, jointly or in common with any other person, the judgment shall be a lien on the interest of the defendant only.
Personal property of the judgment debtor shall be held only from the time it is actually levied upon.
However, if a judgment includes any amount arising from medical debt as defined in RCW 19.16.100, the lien continues for no more than six years from the date of entry and may not be extended.
Sec.
4.
RCW 4.56.210 and 1995 c 75 s 1 are each amended to read as follows:
p.
5 SB 5993 (1) Except as provided in subsections (2) ((and)), (3), and (4) of this section, after the expiration of ten years from the date of the entry of any judgment heretofore or hereafter rendered in this state, it shall cease to be a lien or charge against the estate or person of the judgment debtor.
No suit, action or other proceeding shall ever be had on any judgment rendered in this state by which the lien shall be extended or continued in force for any greater or longer period than ten years.
(2) An underlying judgment or judgment lien entered after ((the effective date of this act)) July 23, 1989, for accrued child support shall continue in force for ten years after the eighteenth birthday of the youngest child named in the order for whom support is ordered.
All judgments entered after ((the effective date of this act)) July 23, 1989, shall contain the birthdate of the youngest child for whom support is ordered.
(3) A lien based upon an underlying judgment continues in force for an additional ten-year period if the period of execution for the underlying judgment is extended under RCW 6.17.020.
(4) A lien arising from a judgment that includes any amount of medical debt as defined in RCW 19.16.100 expires six years from the date of entry of the judgment and may not be renewed, revived, or extended.
The extension procedure under RCW 6.17.020(3) does not apply to such liens.
26 ESSBSB 5993
Show all 64 changed rows (24 more)
View plain text versions (3)
- Bill View text Current pdf
- Substitute Engrossed Substitute Bill pdf
- Substitute Substitute Bill pdf
Action History
-
By resolution, returned to Senate Rules Committee for third reading.
-
Rules Committee relieved of further consideration. Placed on second reading.
-
Referred to Rules 2 Review.
-
Minority; do not pass.
-
CRJ - Majority; do pass.
-
Executive action taken in the House Committee on Civil Rights & Judiciary at 10:30 AM.
-
Public hearing in the House Committee on Civil Rights & Judiciary at 8:00 AM.
-
First reading, referred to Civil Rights & Judiciary.
-
Third reading, passed; yeas, 29; nays, 19; absent, 0; excused, 1.
-
Rules suspended. Placed on Third Reading.
-
Floor amendment(s) adopted.
-
1st substitute bill substituted (LAW 26).
-
Placed on second reading by Rules Committee.
-
Passed to Rules Committee for second reading.
-
Minority; without recommendation.
-
Minority; do not pass.
-
LAW - Majority; 1st substitute bill be substituted, do pass.
-
Executive action taken in the Senate Committee on Law & Justice at 10:30 AM.
-
Public hearing in the Senate Committee on Law & Justice at 10:30 AM.
-
First reading, referred to Law & Justice.
-
Prefiled for introduction.
Sponsors
- Claire Wilson · Cosponsor
- Yasmin Trudeau · Cosponsor
- Derek Stanford · Cosponsor
- Vandana Slatter · Cosponsor
- Tina Orwall · Cosponsor
- T'wina Nobles · Cosponsor
- John Lovick · Cosponsor
- Liz Lovelett · Cosponsor
- Marko Liias · Cosponsor
- Bob Hasegawa · Cosponsor
- Noel Frame · Cosponsor
- Steve Conway · Cosponsor
- Jessica Bateman · Cosponsor
- Marcus Riccelli · Cosponsor
- Emily Alvarado · Primary
- Javier Valdez · Cosponsor
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 15 co-sponsors · 135 not signed on · 33 voted No
Sponsors (1)
- Emily Alvarado Democrat Voted No
Co-sponsors (15)
- Claire Wilson Democrat Voted No
- Yasmin Trudeau Democrat Voted No
- Derek Stanford Democrat Voted No
- Vandana Slatter Democrat Voted No
- Tina Orwall Democrat Voted No
- T'wina Nobles Democrat Voted No
- John Lovick Democrat Voted No
- Liz Lovelett Democrat
- Marko Liias Democrat Voted No
- Bob Hasegawa Democrat Voted No
- Noel Frame Democrat Voted No
- Steve Conway Democrat Voted No
- Jessica Bateman Democrat Voted No
- Marcus Riccelli Democrat Voted No
- Javier Valdez Democrat Voted No
Not signed on (135)
135 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 135 →"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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democrat | 0 | 29 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 19 | 29 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 39% | 59% | 0% | 2% |
How each member voted (49)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Adrian Cortes | Democrat | Nay |
| Annette Cleveland | Democrat | Nay |
| Bob Hasegawa | Democrat | Nay |
| Claire Wilson | Democrat | Nay |
| Claudia Kauffman | Democrat | Nay |
| Deborah Krishnadasan | Democrat | Nay |
| Derek Stanford | Democrat | Nay |
| Drew Hansen | Democrat | Nay |
| Emily Alvarado | Democrat | Nay |
| Jamie Pedersen | Democrat | Nay |
| Javier Valdez | Democrat | Nay |
| Jesse Salomon | Democrat | Nay |
| Jessica Bateman | Democrat | Nay |
| John Lovick | Democrat | Nay |
| June Robinson | Democrat | Nay |
| Lisa Wellman | Democrat | Nay |
| Liz Lovelett | Democrat | Not Voting |
| Manka Dhingra | Democrat | Nay |
| Marcus Riccelli | Democrat | Nay |
| Marko Liias | Democrat | Nay |
| Mike Chapman | Democrat | Nay |
| Noel Frame | Democrat | Nay |
| Rebecca Saldaña | Democrat | Nay |
| Sharon Shewmake | Democrat | Nay |
| Steve Conway | Democrat | Nay |
| T'wina Nobles | Democrat | Nay |
| Tina Orwall | Democrat | Nay |
| Vandana Slatter | Democrat | Nay |
| Victoria Hunt | Democrat | Nay |
| Yasmin Trudeau | Democrat | Nay |
| Chris Gildon | Republican | Yea |
| Curtis King | Republican | Yea |
| Drew MacEwen | Republican | Yea |
| Jeff Holy | Republican | Yea |
| Jeff Wilson | Republican | Yea |
| Jim McCune | Republican | Yea |
| John Braun | Republican | Yea |
| Judy Warnick | Republican | Yea |
| Keith Goehner | Republican | Yea |
| Keith Wagoner | Republican | Yea |
| Leonard Christian | Republican | Yea |
| Mark Schoesler | Republican | Yea |
| Matt Boehnke | Republican | Yea |
| Nikki Torres | Republican | Yea |
| Paul Harris | Republican | Yea |
| Perry Dozier | Republican | Yea |
| Phil Fortunato | Republican | Yea |
| Ron Muzzall | Republican | Yea |
| Shelly Short | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democrat | 29 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 0 | 19 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 29 | 19 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 59% | 39% | 0% | 2% |
How each member voted (49)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Adrian Cortes | Democrat | Yea |
| Annette Cleveland | Democrat | Yea |
| Bob Hasegawa | Democrat | Yea |
| Claire Wilson | Democrat | Yea |
| Claudia Kauffman | Democrat | Yea |
| Deborah Krishnadasan | Democrat | Yea |
| Derek Stanford | Democrat | Yea |
| Drew Hansen | Democrat | Yea |
| Emily Alvarado | Democrat | Yea |
| Jamie Pedersen | Democrat | Yea |
| Javier Valdez | Democrat | Yea |
| Jesse Salomon | Democrat | Yea |
| Jessica Bateman | Democrat | Yea |
| John Lovick | Democrat | Yea |
| June Robinson | Democrat | Yea |
| Lisa Wellman | Democrat | Yea |
| Liz Lovelett | Democrat | Not Voting |
| Manka Dhingra | Democrat | Yea |
| Marcus Riccelli | Democrat | Yea |
| Marko Liias | Democrat | Yea |
| Mike Chapman | Democrat | Yea |
| Noel Frame | Democrat | Yea |
| Rebecca Saldaña | Democrat | Yea |
| Sharon Shewmake | Democrat | Yea |
| Steve Conway | Democrat | Yea |
| T'wina Nobles | Democrat | Yea |
| Tina Orwall | Democrat | Yea |
| Vandana Slatter | Democrat | Yea |
| Victoria Hunt | Democrat | Yea |
| Yasmin Trudeau | Democrat | Yea |
| Chris Gildon | Republican | Nay |
| Curtis King | Republican | Nay |
| Drew MacEwen | Republican | Nay |
| Jeff Holy | Republican | Nay |
| Jeff Wilson | Republican | Nay |
| Jim McCune | Republican | Nay |
| John Braun | Republican | Nay |
| Judy Warnick | Republican | Nay |
| Keith Goehner | Republican | Nay |
| Keith Wagoner | Republican | Nay |
| Leonard Christian | Republican | Nay |
| Mark Schoesler | Republican | Nay |
| Matt Boehnke | Republican | Nay |
| Nikki Torres | Republican | Nay |
| Paul Harris | Republican | Nay |
| Perry Dozier | Republican | Nay |
| Phil Fortunato | Republican | Nay |
| Ron Muzzall | Republican | Nay |
| Shelly Short | Republican | Nay |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- Who sponsors SB 5993?
- SB 5993 is sponsored by Claire Wilson (Democrat), Yasmin Trudeau (Democrat), Derek Stanford (Democrat), Vandana Slatter (Democrat), Tina Orwall (Democrat), T'wina Nobles (Democrat), John Lovick (Democrat), Liz Lovelett (Democrat), Marko Liias (Democrat), Bob Hasegawa (Democrat), Noel Frame (Democrat), Steve Conway (Democrat), Jessica Bateman (Democrat), Marcus Riccelli (Democrat), Emily Alvarado (Democrat), and Javier Valdez (Democrat).
- What is the current status of SB 5993?
- This bill has passed the Senate. Introduced January 06, 2026. It now moves to the second chamber.
- Where can I track SB 5993?
- Track SB 5993 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 5993
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 SB 5993
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →