Insurance coverage, personal healthcare spending, longevity, mortality, health risks, and provider shortages.
Uninsured rate · all ages3.5%2024 · #49 of 50 · highest first
Uninsured rate · under age 654.3%2024 · #49 of 50 · highest first
Private coverage · under age 6576.2%2024 · #9 of 50 · highest first
Hawaii over time
Explore Hawaii readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Hawaii officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Hawaii effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Hawaii change.
Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear
Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.
Uninsured rate · all ages Hawaii · source units
HawaiiPublished U.S. benchmark
Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.
9 of 9 reviewed Hawaii actions match · 9 date markers shown. 22 major events shown separately.
Hawaii · 2024: 3.5% · Rank #49 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 8.2%
FactVote uses the Census Bureau's HIC-4_ACS historical table. Rates and 90% confidence margins of error are the published ACS 1-year estimates for the civilian noninstitutionalized population. ACS annual estimates, all ages. Standard ACS 2020 one-year data were not released; the chart leaves a gap. Survey ranks describe point estimates and do not establish significant differences. Annual observations use December 31; monthly observations use the first of the month. Lines connect consecutive readings and do not supply values between them. Missing observations break the lines.
The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.
Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.
Hawaii · state comparison
Who has health coverage?
Compare ACS annual estimates for all ages or people under 65. Coverage categories can overlap and do not sum to the insured share.
Hawaii · 20243.5%
Hawaii rank#49among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark8.2%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Uninsured rate · all ages
FactVote uses the Census Bureau's HIC-4_ACS historical table. Rates and 90% confidence margins of error are the published ACS 1-year estimates for the civilian noninstitutionalized population.
ACS annual estimates, all ages. Standard ACS 2020 one-year data were not released; the chart leaves a gap. Survey ranks describe point estimates and do not establish significant differences.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
Hawaii
2024 · Hawaii: 3.5% · Rank #49 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 8.2% · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Hawaii Uninsured rate · all ages history
Period
Hawaii
Compare
2014
5.3%
2015
4%
2016
3.5%
2017
3.8%
2018
4.1%
2019
4.2%
2020
Not available
2021
3.9%
2022
3.5%
2023
3.2%
2024
3.5%
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Hawaii stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Hawaii has a dark outline.
Lower value · 2.8%Higher value · 16.7%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Hawaii · 3.5%2024 · Rank #49 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Hawaii with every state · 50 ranked
Uninsured rate · all ages · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Texas
16.7%
—
#2
Georgia
12%
—
#3
Oklahoma
11.5%
—
#4
Nevada
11.4%
—
#5
Alaska
11%
—
#6
Florida
10.9%
—
#7
Arizona
10.3%
—
#7
Wyoming
10.3%
—
#9
New Mexico
10.1%
—
#10
Mississippi
9.7%
—
#10
Tennessee
9.7%
—
#12
Arkansas
9.4%
—
#13
Idaho
9.2%
—
#14
South Carolina
9%
—
#15
Montana
8.8%
—
#16
North Carolina
8.6%
—
#17
Kansas
8.5%
—
#18
Utah
8.3%
—
#19
Alabama
8.2%
—
#20
South Dakota
8.1%
—
#21
Colorado
7.9%
—
#22
Louisiana
7.7%
—
#22
Missouri
7.7%
—
#22
New Jersey
7.7%
—
#25
Indiana
7.5%
—
#26
Nebraska
7.1%
—
#27
Delaware
6.9%
—
#27
Illinois
6.9%
—
#27
Virginia
6.9%
—
#30
Kentucky
6.8%
—
#31
Ohio
6.7%
—
#32
Washington
6.5%
—
#33
Maryland
6.3%
—
#34
North Dakota
6.1%
—
#35
California
5.9%
—
#36
Connecticut
5.8%
—
#36
Pennsylvania
5.8%
—
#36
West Virginia
5.8%
—
#39
Maine
5.5%
—
#40
Iowa
5.4%
—
#41
Wisconsin
5.3%
—
#42
Oregon
5.2%
—
#43
Michigan
5.1%
—
#43
Minnesota
5.1%
—
#45
New York
5%
—
#46
Rhode Island
4.6%
—
#47
New Hampshire
4.5%
—
#48
Vermont
4.2%
—
#49
Hawaii · your comparison
3.5%
—
#50
Massachusetts
2.8%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Share of Hawaii’s civilian noninstitutionalized residents under age 65 who lacked comprehensive health-insurance coverage at the time of the ACS survey.
This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.
Method and limitations
U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts, sourced from the 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimate.
This is a survey estimate for people under 65 and does not describe coverage type or continuity of coverage.
Insurance status alone does not measure affordability, access, quality, or health outcomes.
State spending is reported for 2020, the latest year available in this CMS state series. Choose a service to compare Hawaii with every state.
Hawaii · 2020$10,291
Hawaii rank#23among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$10,191Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Personal healthcare spending per resident
Personal health care expenditure per resident, assigned to the state where the patient resides.
2020 is the last year in this CMS state series. Personal health care excludes administration, public health, and investment included in national health expenditures. This is spending by all payers, not a household bill.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
Hawaii
2020 · Hawaii: $10,291 · Rank #23 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $10,191 · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Hawaii Personal healthcare spending per resident history
Period
Hawaii
Compare
2014
$7,224
2015
$7,747
2016
$8,041
2017
$8,496
2018
$8,932
2019
$9,555
2020
$10,291
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Hawaii stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Hawaii has a dark outline.
Lower value · $7.52KHigher value · $14.01KStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Hawaii · $10,2912020 · Rank #23 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Hawaii with every state · 50 ranked
Personal healthcare spending per resident · 2020 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
New York
$14,007
—
#2
Alaska
$13,642
—
#3
Massachusetts
$13,319
—
#4
Delaware
$12,899
—
#5
West Virginia
$12,769
—
#6
Vermont
$12,756
—
#7
South Dakota
$12,495
—
#8
Connecticut
$12,489
—
#9
Maine
$12,077
—
#10
New Jersey
$11,868
—
#11
New Hampshire
$11,793
—
#12
Rhode Island
$11,694
—
#13
Pennsylvania
$11,603
—
#14
North Dakota
$11,301
—
#15
Wyoming
$10,989
—
#16
Minnesota
$10,846
—
#17
Maryland
$10,839
—
#18
Indiana
$10,517
—
#19
Louisiana
$10,515
—
#20
Nebraska
$10,514
—
#21
Ohio
$10,478
—
#22
California
$10,299
—
#23
Hawaii · your comparison
$10,291
—
#24
Kentucky
$10,257
—
#25
Montana
$10,212
—
#26
Illinois
$10,190
—
#27
Oregon
$10,071
—
#28
Wisconsin
$9,982
—
#29
Missouri
$9,921
—
#30
Michigan
$9,897
—
#31
Florida
$9,865
—
#32
Iowa
$9,789
—
#33
Oklahoma
$9,444
—
#34
Kansas
$9,408
—
#35
Mississippi
$9,394
—
#36
Arkansas
$9,338
—
#37
Tennessee
$9,336
—
#38
Alabama
$9,280
—
#39
Washington
$9,265
—
#40
Virginia
$9,195
—
#41
North Carolina
$8,917
—
#42
New Mexico
$8,902
—
#43
South Carolina
$8,766
—
#44
Georgia
$8,758
—
#45
Arizona
$8,756
—
#46
Colorado
$8,583
—
#47
Texas
$8,406
—
#48
Nevada
$8,348
—
#49
Idaho
$8,148
—
#50
Utah
$7,522
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Use age-adjusted mortality to account for different age distributions; life expectancy summarizes period death rates.
Hawaii · 202280 years
Hawaii rank#1among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark77.5 yearsSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Life expectancy at birth
FactVote uses CDC National Center for Health Statistics annual complete life-table estimates for the total Hawaii population. Values are rounded to the published tenth of a year.
The latest published comparable state series ends in 2022, even though newer national life-expectancy estimates may be available. Period life expectancy summarizes current mortality rates; it is not a forecast of how long a particular person will live. The 2020 and 2021 estimates reflect the mortality shock during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
Hawaii
2022 · Hawaii: 80 years · Rank #1 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 77.5 years · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Hawaii Life expectancy at birth history
Period
Hawaii
Compare
2018
81 years
2019
80.9 years
2020
80.7 years
2021
79.9 years
2022
80 years
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Hawaii stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Hawaii has a dark outline.
Lower value · 72.2 yearsHigher value · 80 yearsStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Hawaii · 80 years2022 · Rank #1 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Hawaii with every state · 50 ranked
Life expectancy at birth · 2022 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Hawaii · your comparison
80 years
—
#2
Massachusetts
79.8 years
—
#3
New Jersey
79.6 years
—
#4
New York
79.5 years
—
#5
Connecticut
79.4 years
—
#6
California
79.3 years
—
#6
Minnesota
79.3 years
—
#8
Rhode Island
79.2 years
—
#9
Utah
79 years
—
#10
New Hampshire
78.7 years
—
#11
Colorado
78.5 years
—
#12
Idaho
78.4 years
—
#12
Washington
78.4 years
—
#14
Nebraska
78.3 years
—
#14
Vermont
78.3 years
—
#16
Wisconsin
78.1 years
—
#17
Florida
77.9 years
—
#17
Iowa
77.9 years
—
#17
North Dakota
77.9 years
—
#20
Maryland
77.8 years
—
#21
Oregon
77.7 years
—
#22
Illinois
77.5 years
—
#22
Virginia
77.5 years
—
#24
Montana
77.3 years
—
#24
Pennsylvania
77.3 years
—
#24
South Dakota
77.3 years
—
#27
Texas
77.1 years
—
#28
Michigan
76.8 years
—
#28
Wyoming
76.8 years
—
#30
Arizona
76.7 years
—
#31
Maine
76.6 years
—
#32
Delaware
76.5 years
—
#32
Kansas
76.5 years
—
#34
Nevada
76.4 years
—
#35
Georgia
75.9 years
—
#35
North Carolina
75.9 years
—
#37
Alaska
75.8 years
—
#38
Ohio
75.6 years
—
#39
Indiana
75.4 years
—
#40
Missouri
75.2 years
—
#41
South Carolina
75.1 years
—
#42
New Mexico
74.5 years
—
#43
Arkansas
73.9 years
—
#44
Alabama
73.8 years
—
#44
Louisiana
73.8 years
—
#44
Oklahoma
73.8 years
—
#44
Tennessee
73.8 years
—
#48
Kentucky
73.6 years
—
#49
Mississippi
72.6 years
—
#50
West Virginia
72.2 years
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Compare age-adjusted adult prevalence using the same survey year and definition.
Hawaii · 20239.5%
Hawaii rank#31among 48 states with data
U.S. benchmark10.7%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted
Adult self-reported prevalence, age-adjusted to a common population.
Published CDC 2019–2023 series. Missing or suppressed estimates remain unranked. Confidence intervals describe sampling uncertainty; point ranks are not significance tests.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
Hawaii
2023 · Hawaii: 9.5% · Rank #31 of 48, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 10.7% · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Hawaii Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted history
Period
Hawaii
Compare
2019
9.3%
2020
9.5%
2021
8.1%
2022
10.4%
2023
9.5%
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Hawaii stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Hawaii has a dark outline.
Lower value · 7.8%Higher value · 15.1%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Hawaii · 9.5%2023 · Rank #31 of 48, highest first95% confidence interval: 8.7% – 10.5%Selected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Hawaii with every state · 48 ranked, 2 unavailable
Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted · 2023 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Mississippi
15.1%
95% CI: 13.7–16.6
#1
West Virginia
15.1%
95% CI: 13.9–16.3
#3
Louisiana
14.6%
95% CI: 13.4–15.8
#4
Alabama
14%
95% CI: 12.7–15.3
#5
Arkansas
13.1%
95% CI: 12–14.3
#6
South Carolina
12.7%
95% CI: 11.9–13.6
#6
Tennessee
12.7%
95% CI: 11.7–13.8
#8
Texas
12.1%
95% CI: 11–13.3
#9
Indiana
11.7%
95% CI: 11.1–12.4
#10
Georgia
11.5%
95% CI: 10.7–12.3
#10
Ohio
11.5%
95% CI: 10.8–12.2
#12
Oklahoma
11.3%
95% CI: 10.5–12.1
#13
Delaware
11.1%
95% CI: 9.8–12.6
#14
North Carolina
11%
95% CI: 9.8–12.3
#15
Illinois
10.9%
95% CI: 9.9–12.1
#15
Maryland
10.9%
95% CI: 10.2–11.7
#15
Michigan
10.9%
95% CI: 10.1–11.8
#18
Nevada
10.8%
95% CI: 8.9–13
#18
New Mexico
10.8%
95% CI: 9.3–12.6
#20
Missouri
10.7%
95% CI: 9.9–11.7
#20
South Dakota
10.7%
95% CI: 8.9–12.8
#22
California
10.6%
95% CI: 9.8–11.4
#23
Kansas
10.5%
95% CI: 9.7–11.3
#24
Virginia
10.4%
95% CI: 9.5–11.4
#25
Florida
10.1%
95% CI: 9.1–11.1
#26
Rhode Island
10%
95% CI: 9.1–11
#27
Arizona
9.9%
95% CI: 9.2–10.7
#27
Iowa
9.9%
95% CI: 9.2–10.7
#29
Nebraska
9.7%
95% CI: 9–10.3
#30
Wisconsin
9.6%
95% CI: 9–10.2
#31
Hawaii · your comparison
9.5%
95% CI: 8.7–10.5
#31
New York
9.5%
95% CI: 8.9–10.1
#31
Oregon
9.5%
95% CI: 8.7–10.5
#34
Wyoming
9.4%
95% CI: 8.5–10.5
#35
Minnesota
9.3%
95% CI: 8.6–10
#36
New Jersey
9.1%
95% CI: 8.4–9.9
#37
Maine
9%
95% CI: 8.4–9.7
#38
North Dakota
8.9%
95% CI: 8.1–9.7
#39
Idaho
8.7%
95% CI: 7.9–9.6
#40
Washington
8.6%
95% CI: 8.2–9
#41
Massachusetts
8.5%
95% CI: 7.8–9.4
#42
Connecticut
8.4%
95% CI: 7.6–9.3
#43
Alaska
8.2%
95% CI: 7.4–9.2
#44
Utah
8.1%
95% CI: 7.5–8.7
#45
Colorado
8%
95% CI: 7.3–8.7
#46
Montana
7.9%
95% CI: 7.2–8.7
#46
New Hampshire
7.9%
95% CI: 7.1–8.8
#48
Vermont
7.8%
95% CI: 7–8.7
—
Kentucky
Not available
No comparable published observation for this period; excluded from rank.
—
Pennsylvania
Not available
No comparable published observation for this period; excluded from rank.
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Compare coverage of need, practitioners needed, or affected population for each discipline.
Hawaii · June 30, 202667.1%
Hawaii rank#7among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark47.4%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Primary care · need met
HRSA-designated shortage areas; measures describe need within those areas, not the entire state population.
National report totals can include territories. Designation rules and populations differ by discipline; do not add disciplines. Absolute population and practitioner ranks also reflect state size.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Hawaii stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Hawaii has a dark outline.
Lower value · 11.2%Higher value · 83.2%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Hawaii · 67.1%June 30, 2026 · Rank #7 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Hawaii with every state · 50 ranked
Primary care · need met · June 30, 2026 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
New Jersey
83.2%
—
#2
Vermont
82.6%
—
#3
South Carolina
79.4%
—
#4
New Hampshire
74.8%
—
#5
Rhode Island
74.3%
—
#6
Louisiana
72.1%
—
#7
Hawaii · your comparison
67.1%
—
#8
Utah
65.4%
—
#9
Wisconsin
65.2%
—
#10
Alabama
63%
—
#11
Connecticut
60.3%
—
#12
Massachusetts
58%
—
#13
Tennessee
58%
—
#14
Virginia
57.2%
—
#15
Pennsylvania
56.7%
—
#16
Maine
56%
—
#17
Minnesota
55.4%
—
#18
Wyoming
54.4%
—
#19
Indiana
54.2%
—
#20
California
53.2%
—
#21
Arkansas
52.6%
—
#22
Texas
49.8%
—
#23
Ohio
49.7%
—
#24
Nebraska
49.1%
—
#25
Alaska
48.9%
—
#26
North Carolina
48.1%
—
#27
Colorado
47.5%
—
#28
Michigan
44.9%
—
#29
Oregon
43.9%
—
#30
Idaho
43.9%
—
#31
Washington
42.4%
—
#32
Illinois
41.5%
—
#33
Nevada
41.5%
—
#34
Arizona
41.2%
—
#35
Kansas
41.1%
—
#36
Iowa
40.5%
—
#37
Florida
39.7%
—
#38
Georgia
39.1%
—
#39
Montana
38.5%
—
#40
West Virginia
38.3%
—
#41
North Dakota
36.5%
—
#42
New York
35.3%
—
#43
South Dakota
34.6%
—
#44
Mississippi
34.1%
—
#45
Maryland
31.6%
—
#46
New Mexico
31.4%
—
#47
Kentucky
30.8%
—
#48
Oklahoma
28.6%
—
#49
Missouri
23.7%
—
#50
Delaware
11.2%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Premium comparisons use a published historical all-state employer survey. Total premiums combine employer and employee payments.
Hawaii · 2020$7,040
Hawaii rank#28among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$7,149Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Single coverage premium · all firms
Average total annual employer-plan premium per enrolled employee at private-sector establishments offering coverage.
Historical 2020 published all-state table; not a current quote. Includes both employer and employee contributions, rather than just a worker’s payment. Survey estimates and small firm samples carry uncertainty. Missing estimates remain unavailable.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Hawaii stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Hawaii has a dark outline.
Lower value · $6.39KHigher value · $8.64KStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Hawaii · $7,0402020 · Rank #28 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Hawaii with every state · 50 ranked
Single coverage premium · all firms · 2020 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Alaska
$8,635
—
#2
New York
$8,177
—
#3
New Hampshire
$7,991
—
#4
Vermont
$7,868
—
#5
Wyoming
$7,743
—
#6
Nebraska
$7,611
—
#7
South Carolina
$7,516
—
#8
Connecticut
$7,501
—
#9
Maine
$7,496
—
#10
Massachusetts
$7,452
—
#11
Washington
$7,440
—
#12
New Mexico
$7,424
—
#13
Illinois
$7,376
—
#14
New Jersey
$7,373
—
#15
Maryland
$7,352
—
#16
Rhode Island
$7,326
—
#17
Indiana
$7,319
—
#18
Delaware
$7,280
—
#19
Wisconsin
$7,250
—
#20
Pennsylvania
$7,246
—
#21
North Dakota
$7,216
—
#22
Colorado
$7,206
—
#23
Missouri
$7,179
—
#24
California
$7,173
—
#25
Florida
$7,078
—
#26
South Dakota
$7,070
—
#27
Oklahoma
$7,058
—
#28
Hawaii · your comparison
$7,040
—
#29
North Carolina
$7,036
—
#30
Texas
$7,017
—
#31
West Virginia
$6,993
—
#32
Ohio
$6,989
—
#33
Kentucky
$6,949
—
#34
Iowa
$6,932
—
#35
Virginia
$6,928
—
#36
Oregon
$6,917
—
#37
Minnesota
$6,910
—
#38
Georgia
$6,876
—
#39
Montana
$6,860
—
#40
Idaho
$6,744
—
#41
Louisiana
$6,713
—
#42
Michigan
$6,683
—
#43
Kansas
$6,675
—
#44
Arizona
$6,612
—
#45
Utah
$6,593
—
#46
Mississippi
$6,561
—
#47
Nevada
$6,493
—
#48
Tennessee
$6,485
—
#49
Arkansas
$6,414
—
#50
Alabama
$6,393
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Adult statewide estimates use the same SAMHSA model and survey period. Treatment use is a share of all adults, not a share of adults with mental illness.
Hawaii · 2023–202419.8%
Hawaii rank#48among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark23.1%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Any Mental Illness · adults 18+
Civilian noninstitutionalized adults age 18+, past-year prevalence or treatment use, estimated by small-area survey models.
Mental illness and depression estimates pool 2023–2024; treatment use covers 2024 only. Definitions and model-based uncertainty differ from the national page’s annual 2025 survey estimates. Point-estimate ranks do not establish significant differences. Serious mental illness is a subset of any mental illness, so their percentages must not be added.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Hawaii stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Hawaii has a dark outline.
Lower value · 18.1%Higher value · 31.6%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Hawaii · 19.8%2023–2024 · Rank #48 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Hawaii with every state · 50 ranked
Any Mental Illness · adults 18+ · 2023–2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Oregon
31.6%
—
#2
Vermont
29.1%
—
#3
West Virginia
28.1%
—
#4
Washington
27.9%
—
#5
New Hampshire
27.7%
—
#6
Tennessee
27%
—
#7
Utah
26.7%
—
#8
Maine
26.7%
—
#9
Arkansas
26.6%
—
#10
Colorado
26.4%
—
#11
Rhode Island
25.8%
—
#12
Missouri
25.7%
—
#13
Montana
25.6%
—
#14
Indiana
25.3%
—
#15
Kentucky
25.3%
—
#16
Georgia
25.2%
—
#17
Iowa
25%
—
#18
Massachusetts
24.9%
—
#19
Wyoming
24.7%
—
#20
Nevada
24.6%
—
#21
Arizona
24.6%
—
#22
Wisconsin
24.6%
—
#23
Idaho
24.5%
—
#24
Nebraska
24.1%
—
#25
Louisiana
24.1%
—
#26
Alaska
24%
—
#27
Pennsylvania
23.9%
—
#28
New Mexico
23.9%
—
#28
Ohio
23.9%
—
#30
Connecticut
23.7%
—
#31
Kansas
23.7%
—
#32
Michigan
23.6%
—
#33
Virginia
23.1%
—
#34
Alabama
23%
—
#35
North Dakota
23%
—
#36
Maryland
22.7%
—
#37
Oklahoma
22.6%
—
#38
Minnesota
22.6%
—
#39
Illinois
22.2%
—
#40
Delaware
22.1%
—
#41
New York
21.9%
—
#42
South Dakota
21.8%
—
#43
California
21.6%
—
#44
North Carolina
21.4%
—
#45
Florida
20.8%
—
#46
Texas
20.7%
—
#47
Mississippi
20.5%
—
#48
Hawaii · your comparison
19.8%
—
#49
South Carolina
19.8%
—
#50
New Jersey
18.1%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Explore current officeholders and explicitly reviewed historical executive officials, labeled at the time of their actions. Timeline dates, action type, status and search also filter this list. Read any record’s summary, latest recorded status and official evidence below, or open it beside the timeline.
9 of 9 reviewed Hawaii actions · newest first
May 29, 2026 · HB 1875 · RELATING TO HEALTH CARE. · SignedGovernor · HB 1875
RELATING TO HEALTH CARE.
May 29, 2026 · Signed
Gov. Josh Green · Signed
FactVote reviewed summary
Josh Green signed HB 1875. HB 1875 creates civil remedies for litigation targeting reproductive or gender-affirming care lawful in Hawaii, including injunctions, damages and litigation costs. Actions must be filed within six years after the abusive litigation begins or enforcement of its order or judgment is attempted. Standard payer actions concerning coverage, fraud, waste and lawful contract enforcement remain permitted. Malpractice insurers cannot refuse, cancel or decline renewal solely for providing, assisting or referring qualifying care consistent with accepted practice standards and Hawaii law; the listed sanctions and rate increases are prohibited when unsupported by the specified actuarial analysis. Health plans and insurers cannot terminate or refuse to renew participating-provider contracts solely because the provider provides or assists in the covered care. The abortion connection concerns reproductive-care protections, not every service covered by the law or proof of increased access.
Act 59, approved 2026-05-29. Approval, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
The fact counts reported abortions occurring in Hawaii, regardless of patient residence. Provider permissions and protections concern access to that care; they do not measure residents receiving care elsewhere. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Hawaii evidence context: Abortions reported by area of occurrence. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
SECTION 2. Chapter 323J, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding three new sections to be appropriately designated and to read as follows: "§323J- Abusive litigation; prohibited; remedies. (a) If a person or entity, whether or not acting under the color of law, engages in or attempts to engage in abusive litigation, or attempts to enforce any order or judgment issued in connection with any abusive litigation, any aggrieved person may bring a civil action against that person or entity in the circuit court of the circuit in which the aggrieved person resides or in which the aggrieved person accessed, received, provided, facilitated, or attempted to access, receive provide, or facilitate reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services. The civil actions may be for: (1) Injunctive relief; (2) Actual damages, including the amount of any judgment issued in connection with the abusive litigation; (3) Expenses, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the abusive litigation; (4) Expenses, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred to bring an action under this section; and (5) Punitive damages. (b) Any civil action filed pursuant to this section shall be filed within six years after the date the abusive litigation is commenced, or if the person or entity is attempting to enforce an order or a judgment, within six years after the date enforcement is attempted. (c) Notwithstanding any provision of this section, the requirements set forth herein shall not apply to prohibit standard health care actions or activities of a health payor regarding insurance coverage status, fraud, waste, or lawful activities of a health payor to enforce its rights under a contract with a person or entity. (d) For the purposes of this section: "Abusive litigation" means any litigation or other legal action, including civil, criminal, or administrative action, brought against another person or entity for accessing, receiving, providing, facilitating, or attempting to access, receive, provide, or facilitate reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services that are lawful under the laws of this State. "Aggrieved person" means: (1) A person or entity against whom abusive litigation is filed or prosecuted or against whom an order or judgment issued in connection with such abusive litigation is attempted to be enforced; or (2) The employer or principal of a person against whom abusive litigation is filed or prosecuted or against whom an order or a judgment issued in connection with such abusive litigation is attempted to be enforced if the action that forms the basis of the abusive litigation was performed within the scope of the person's employment or agency relationship. §323J- Medical malpractice insurance; prohibited actions. (a) Any insurer that issues medical malpractice insurance in this State shall not take a prohibited action against an applicant for, or the named insured under, a medical malpractice policy in this State solely because the applicant or insured has provided, or assisted in the provision of, reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services or made a referral for reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services; provided that the care provided by the applicant or insured was consistent with generally accepted standards of practice under the laws of this State and did not otherwise violate the laws of this State. (b) For the purposes of this section, "prohibited action" means: (1) Refusing to issue a medical malpractice policy; (2) Canceling or terminating a medical malpractice policy; (3) Refusing to renew a medical malpractice policy; or (4) Imposing any sanctions, fines, penalties, or rate increases that are not supported by actuarial analysis conducted in accordance with the applicable Actuarial Standards of Practice promulgated by the Actuarial Standards Board. §323J- Health carriers; prohibitions. No group health plan or health insurance insurer offering or renewing a health plan in this State shall terminate or refuse to renew a health care contract with a participating health care provider on the sole basis that the participating provider provides, or assists in the provision of, reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services."
Rep. Adrian K. Tam · Sponsored / Rep. Terez Amato · Sponsored / Rep. Tina Nakada Grandinetti · Sponsored / Rep. Linda Ichiyama · Sponsored / Rep. Greggor Ilagan · Sponsored / Rep. Kim Coco Iwamoto · Sponsored / Rep. Lisa Marten · Sponsored / Rep. Amy A. Perruso · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HB 1875 creates civil remedies for litigation targeting reproductive or gender-affirming care lawful in Hawaii, including injunctions, damages and litigation costs. Actions must be filed within six years after the abusive litigation begins or enforcement of its order or judgment is attempted. Standard payer actions concerning coverage, fraud, waste and lawful contract enforcement remain permitted. Malpractice insurers cannot refuse, cancel or decline renewal solely for providing, assisting or referring qualifying care consistent with accepted practice standards and Hawaii law; the listed sanctions and rate increases are prohibited when unsupported by the specified actuarial analysis. Health plans and insurers cannot terminate or refuse to renew participating-provider contracts solely because the provider provides or assists in the covered care. The abortion connection concerns reproductive-care protections, not every service covered by the law or proof of increased access.
Act 59, approved 2026-05-29. Approval, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
The fact counts reported abortions occurring in Hawaii, regardless of patient residence. Provider permissions and protections concern access to that care; they do not measure residents receiving care elsewhere. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Hawaii evidence context: Abortions reported by area of occurrence. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
SECTION 2. Chapter 323J, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding three new sections to be appropriately designated and to read as follows: "§323J- Abusive litigation; prohibited; remedies. (a) If a person or entity, whether or not acting under the color of law, engages in or attempts to engage in abusive litigation, or attempts to enforce any order or judgment issued in connection with any abusive litigation, any aggrieved person may bring a civil action against that person or entity in the circuit court of the circuit in which the aggrieved person resides or in which the aggrieved person accessed, received, provided, facilitated, or attempted to access, receive provide, or facilitate reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services. The civil actions may be for: (1) Injunctive relief; (2) Actual damages, including the amount of any judgment issued in connection with the abusive litigation; (3) Expenses, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the abusive litigation; (4) Expenses, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred to bring an action under this section; and (5) Punitive damages. (b) Any civil action filed pursuant to this section shall be filed within six years after the date the abusive litigation is commenced, or if the person or entity is attempting to enforce an order or a judgment, within six years after the date enforcement is attempted. (c) Notwithstanding any provision of this section, the requirements set forth herein shall not apply to prohibit standard health care actions or activities of a health payor regarding insurance coverage status, fraud, waste, or lawful activities of a health payor to enforce its rights under a contract with a person or entity. (d) For the purposes of this section: "Abusive litigation" means any litigation or other legal action, including civil, criminal, or administrative action, brought against another person or entity for accessing, receiving, providing, facilitating, or attempting to access, receive, provide, or facilitate reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services that are lawful under the laws of this State. "Aggrieved person" means: (1) A person or entity against whom abusive litigation is filed or prosecuted or against whom an order or judgment issued in connection with such abusive litigation is attempted to be enforced; or (2) The employer or principal of a person against whom abusive litigation is filed or prosecuted or against whom an order or a judgment issued in connection with such abusive litigation is attempted to be enforced if the action that forms the basis of the abusive litigation was performed within the scope of the person's employment or agency relationship. §323J- Medical malpractice insurance; prohibited actions. (a) Any insurer that issues medical malpractice insurance in this State shall not take a prohibited action against an applicant for, or the named insured under, a medical malpractice policy in this State solely because the applicant or insured has provided, or assisted in the provision of, reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services or made a referral for reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services; provided that the care provided by the applicant or insured was consistent with generally accepted standards of practice under the laws of this State and did not otherwise violate the laws of this State. (b) For the purposes of this section, "prohibited action" means: (1) Refusing to issue a medical malpractice policy; (2) Canceling or terminating a medical malpractice policy; (3) Refusing to renew a medical malpractice policy; or (4) Imposing any sanctions, fines, penalties, or rate increases that are not supported by actuarial analysis conducted in accordance with the applicable Actuarial Standards of Practice promulgated by the Actuarial Standards Board. §323J- Health carriers; prohibitions. No group health plan or health insurance insurer offering or renewing a health plan in this State shall terminate or refuse to renew a health care contract with a participating health care provider on the sole basis that the participating provider provides, or assists in the provision of, reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services."
Introduced by Nadine Nakamura at another party’s request, HB 2062 proposed funding for processing temporary restraining and gun-violence protective orders and for public awareness campaigns. Its final Senate draft leaves appropriation amounts blank and uses a July 1, 2055 effective date. It did not become law in the 2026 regular session and does not establish funded positions, campaigns or fewer firearm deaths.
Received notice of disagreement (Hse. Com. No. 780). The regular session ended May 8, 2026 without this bill becoming law. The displayed date is the latest official event, including a carryover entry where applicable.
Why this record is included
The firearm mortality series includes deaths across intents, including suicide and homicide. Storage rules and gun-violence protective-order processing concern access and injury-prevention mechanisms, not a demonstrated mortality effect. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Hawaii evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
SECTION 2. There is appropriated out of the general revenues of the State of Hawaii the sum of $ or so much thereof as may be necessary for fiscal year 2026-2027 for staffing and administrative costs, including the hiring of personnel in each circuit, to effectuate efficient processing of temporary restraining orders and gun violence protective orders in accordance with part IV of chapter 134, Hawaii Revised Statutes. The sum appropriated shall be expended by the judiciary for the purposes of this Act. SECTION 3. There is appropriated out of the general revenues of the State of Hawaii the sum of $ or so much thereof as may be necessary for fiscal year 2026-2027 to conduct community-based gun violence intervention initiatives, including public awareness campaigns on gun violence protective orders. The sum appropriated shall be expended by the department of law enforcement for the purposes of this Act. SECTION 4. This Act shall take effect on July 1, 2055.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Aug 12, 2025 · HR 4968 · Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act · In CongressU.S. Congress · Hawaii delegation · HR 4968
Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act
Aug 12, 2025 · In Congress
Rep. Jill N. Tokuda · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
H.R. 4968 proposes using an elderly-consumer price index for Social Security cost-of-living adjustments. The index tracks typical consumption expenditures of people age 62 and older and would be published for months ending on or after July 31 of the year after enactment. Its use for Social Security adjustments would begin with computation quarters ending on or after September 30 of the second year after enactment. Resulting title II increases would be excluded as income or resources in subsequent months when determining SSI or Medicaid eligibility and benefit amounts for recipients and their spouses or families. The bill remains in Congress. This connection concerns OASDI benefit adjustments, not an enacted increase or a change in Hawaii’s beneficiary count.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Education and Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
The fact counts OASDI beneficiaries receiving payments. Cost-of-living adjustment proposals concern their benefit amounts, without establishing a change in eligibility or beneficiary counts; SSI and Medicare are separate programs. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Hawaii evidence context: Social Security beneficiaries. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
101.Consumer Price Index for Elderly Consumers (a)In GeneralThe Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor shall prepare and publish an index for each calendar month to be known as the Consumer Price Index for Elderly Consumers that indicates changes over time in expenditures for consumption which are typical for individuals in the United States who are 62 years of age or older. (b)Effective DateSubsection (a) shall apply with respect to calendar months ending on or after July 31 of the calendar year following the calendar year in which this Act is enacted. (c)Authorization of AppropriationsThere are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this section. 102.Computation of cost-of-living increases (a)In generalSection 215(i)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: (H)the term Consumer Price Index means the Consumer Price Index for Elderly Consumers (CPI–E, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor).. (b)Application to pre-1979 law (1)In generalSection 215(i)(1) of the Social Security Act as in effect in December 1978, and as applied in certain cases under the provisions of such Act as in effect after December 1978, is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: (D)the term Consumer Price Index means the Consumer Price Index for Elderly Consumers (CPI–E, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor).. (2)Conforming amendmentSection 215(i)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)(4)) is amended by inserting and by section 102 of the Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act after 1986. (c)No effect on adjustments under other lawsSection 215(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)) is amended by adding at the end the following: (6)Any provision of law (other than in this title or title XVI) which provides for adjustment of an amount based on a change in benefit amounts resulting from a determination made under this subsection shall be applied and administered without regard to the amendments made by section 102 of the Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act.. (d)No effect on eligibility for SSI and MedicaidAny increase to an individual’s monthly benefit amount under title II of the Social Security Act as a result of the amendments made by this section shall not be regarded as income or resources for any subsequent month, for purposes of determining the eligibility of the recipient (or the recipient's spouse or family) for benefits or assistance, or the amount or extent of benefits or assistance, under the Supplemental Security Income program or the Medicaid program. (e)Effective dateThe amendments made by this section shall apply to determinations made with respect to cost-of-living computation quarters (as defined in section 215(i)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)(1)(B))) ending on or after September 30 of the second calendar year following the calendar year in which this Act is enacted.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Jul 31, 2025 · S 2614 · Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act · In CongressU.S. Congress · Hawaii delegation · S 2614
Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act
Jul 31, 2025 · In Congress
Sen. Mazie K. Hirono · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
S. 2614 proposes using an elderly-consumer price index for Social Security cost-of-living adjustments. The index tracks typical consumption expenditures of people age 62 and older and would be published for months ending on or after July 31 of the year after enactment. Its use for Social Security adjustments would begin with computation quarters ending on or after September 30 of the second year after enactment. Resulting title II increases would be excluded as income or resources in subsequent months when determining SSI or Medicaid eligibility and benefit amounts for recipients and their spouses or families. The bill remains in Congress. This connection concerns OASDI benefit adjustments, not an enacted increase or a change in Hawaii’s beneficiary count.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
The fact counts OASDI beneficiaries receiving payments. Cost-of-living adjustment proposals concern their benefit amounts, without establishing a change in eligibility or beneficiary counts; SSI and Medicare are separate programs. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Hawaii evidence context: Social Security beneficiaries. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
101.Consumer Price Index for Elderly Consumers(a)In GeneralThe Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor shall prepare and publish an index for each calendar month to be known as the Consumer Price Index for Elderly Consumers that indicates changes over time in expenditures for consumption which are typical for individuals in the United States who are 62 years of age or older.(b)Effective DateSubsection (a) shall apply with respect to calendar months ending on or after July 31 of the calendar year following the calendar year in which this Act is enacted.(c)Authorization of AppropriationsThere are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this section.102.Computation of cost-of-living increases(a)In generalSection 215(i)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:(H)the term Consumer Price Index means the Consumer Price Index for Elderly Consumers (CPI–E, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor).. (b) Application to pre-1979 law (1) In general Section 215(i)(1) of the Social Security Act as in effect in December 1978, and as applied in certain cases under the provisions of such Act as in effect after December 1978, is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: (D) the term Consumer Price Index means the Consumer Price Index for Elderly Consumers (CPI–E, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor). . (2) Conforming amendment Section 215(i)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)(4)) is amended by inserting and by section 102 of the Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act after 1986. (c)No effect on adjustments under other lawsSection 215(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)) is amended by adding at the end the following:(6)Any provision of law (other than in this title or title XVI) which provides for adjustment of an amount based on a change in benefit amounts resulting from a determination made under this subsection shall be applied and administered without regard to the amendments made by section 102 of the Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act..(d)No effect on eligibility for SSI and MedicaidAny increase to an individual’s monthly benefit amount under title II of the Social Security Act as a result of the amendments made by this section shall not be regarded as income or resources for any subsequent month, for purposes of determining the eligibility of the recipient (or the recipient's spouse or family) for benefits or assistance, or the amount or extent of benefits or assistance, under the Supplemental Security Income program or the Medicaid program.(e)Effective dateThe amendments made by this section shall apply to determinations made with respect to cost-of-living computation quarters (as defined in section 215(i)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)(1)(B))) ending on or after September 30 of the second calendar year following the calendar year in which this Act is enacted.
S. 2073 proposes allowing states to offer a Medicaid buy-in to residents not concurrently enrolled in another health plan. Its text specifies January 1, 2026 as the start, but that date does not enact a pending proposal. The new premium rules apply to people not eligible under another Medicaid provision: their combined annual family premiums could not exceed 8.5% of household income, with separate ACA cost-sharing limits and income-qualified reductions. People already eligible through another Medicaid category remain subject to that category’s permitted premium and cost-sharing rules instead. The bill remains in Congress; it does not establish that Hawaii adopted a plan or that uninsured residents enrolled.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
The fact measures residents under age 65 without health insurance. A proposed Medicaid buy-in concerns eligibility and coverage availability, without establishing adoption by Hawaii or actual enrollment. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Hawaii evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
2.Medicaid buy-in option(a)In generalSection 1902 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a) is amended—(1)in subsection (a)(10)—(A)in subparagraph (A)(ii)—(i)in subclause (XXII), by striking ; or and inserting a semicolon;(ii)in subclause (XXIII), by adding or at the end; and(iii)by adding at the end the following new subclause:(XXIV)beginning January 1, 2026, who are residents of the State and are not concurrently enrolled in another health insurance coverage plan, subject, in the case of individuals described in subsection (uu) and notwithstanding section 1916 (except for subsection (k) of such section), to payment of premiums or other cost-sharing charges;; and(B)in the matter following subparagraph (G), by inserting or subparagraph (A)(ii)(XXIV) after described in subparagraph (A)(i)(VIII); and(2)by adding at the end the following new subsection:(uu)Previously undescribed individualsIndividuals described in this subsection are individuals who are—(1)described in subclause (XXIV) of subsection (a)(10)(A)(ii); and(2)are not described in any other subclause of such subsection or any other provision in this Act which provides for eligibility for medical assistance..(b)Provision of at least minimum coverage(1)In generalSection 1902(k)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(k)(1)) is amended by inserting or an individual described in subclause (XXIV) of subsection (a)(10)(A)(ii) after an individual described in subclause (VIII) of subsection (a)(10)(A)(i) each place it appears.(2)Conforming amendmentSection 1903(i)(26) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(i)(26)) is amended by striking individuals described in subclause (VIII) of subsection (a)(10)(A)(i) and inserting individuals described in subsections (a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII) or (a)(10)(A)(ii)(XXIV) of section 1902.(c)Federal financial participation in buy-In program(1)Enhanced match for administrative expensesSection 1903(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(a)) is amended—(A)by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and(B)by inserting after paragraph (6) the following new paragraph:(7)an amount equal to 90 percent of the sums expended during such quarter which are attributable to reasonable administrative expenses related to the administration of a Medicaid buy-in program for individuals described in section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XXIV) (as found necessary by the Secretary for the proper and efficient administration of such a program); plus.(2)Treatment of premium and cost-sharing revenues from Medicaid buy-in program(A)In generalFor purposes of section 1903(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(a)(1)), for any fiscal quarter during which a State collects premiums, cost-sharing, or similar charges under subsection (k) of section 1916 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396o) (as added by this Act), including any advance payments of premium tax credits under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or payments for cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of such Act that are received by the State, the total amount expended during such quarter as medical assistance for individuals who buy into Medicaid coverage under subclause (XXIV) of section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii) of the Social Security Act (as added by this Act) shall be reduced by the amount of such premiums or charges.(B)Treatment of excess premiumsEach State that collects premiums or similar charges under subsection (k) of section 1916 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396o) (as added by this Act) in a fiscal year shall pay to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, at such time and in such form and manner as the Secretary shall specify, an amount equal to 50 percent of the amount, if any, by which—(i)the total amount of such premiums and charges collected by the State for such year; exceeds(ii)the total amount expended by the State during such year as medical assistance for individuals who buy into Medicaid coverage under subclause (XXIV) of section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii) of such Act (as added by this Act).(d)Cost-Sharing requirementSection 1916 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396o) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:(k)Premiums and cost-Sharing for individuals participating in Medicaid buy-In program(1)In generalSubject to paragraph (2), with respect to individuals who are eligible for medical assistance under subsection (a)(10)(A)(ii)(XXIV) of section 1902 and are described in subsection (uu) of such section, a State may—(A)impose premiums, deductibles, cost-sharing, or other similar charges that are determined on an actuarially sound basis; and(B)vary the premium rate imposed on an individual based only on the factors described in section 2701(a)(1)(A) of the Public Health Service Act and subject to the same limitations on the weight which may be given to such factors under such section.(2)Limitations(A)PremiumsThe total amount of premiums imposed for a year under this subsection with respect to all individuals described in paragraph (1) in a family shall not exceed an amount equal to 8.5 percent of the family’s household income (as defined in section 36B(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) for the year involved.(B)Other cost-sharing(i)In generalThe cost-sharing limitations described in section 1302(c) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act shall apply to cost-sharing (as defined in such section) for medical assistance provided under section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XXIV) in the same manner as such limitations apply to cost-sharing under qualified health plans under title I of such Act.(ii)Availability of cost-sharing reductionsIndividuals provided medical assistance under section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XXIV) and subject to cost-sharing under this subsection are eligible for cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (subject to the income eligibility threshold in subsection (b)(2) of such section), and in applying such section—(I)enrollment in a State plan under section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XXIV) shall be treated as coverage under a qualified health plan in the silver level of coverage in the individual market offered through an Exchange established for or by the State under title I of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; and(II)the State agency administering such plan shall be treated as the issuer of such plan.(3)Premiums and cost-sharing for certain other individualsIf an individual is eligible for medical assistance under subsection (a)(10)(A)(ii)(XXIV) of section 1902 and is not described in subsection (uu) of such section, a State—(A)shall not impose premiums and cost-sharing on the individual under this subsection; and(B)may impose premiums and cost-sharing on the individual to the extent allowed by another provision of this Act (other than section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XXIV)) which provides for eligibility for medical assistance, but only if the individual is described in such other provision.(4)Application of premium assistance tax creditsAn individual who is required to pay premiums under this subsection for a year for medical assistance shall be eligible for a premium assistance credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code to the same extent that such individual would be eligible for a premium assistance credit under such section if such individual had paid the same amount in premiums for coverage under a qualified health plan for such year..
Records come from published fact relationships or reviewed topic records with official supporting evidence and verified Hawaii officeholder attribution. Historical executive officials require evidence tied to the action date and are excluded from incumbent proposals. Inclusion follows an explicit topic review, a related state fact, or the action’s title and supporting evidence. Explicit topic reviews take priority; repeated actions use the most recent explicit review for this topic. Duplicate actions attached to several facts appear once. This topic match is not a new finding that an action caused a result, and the reviewed collection is selective. Collection reviewed Oct 6, 2026.
What candidates are saying
Explore statements about health coverage, healthcare costs, access to care and public health from FactVote’s Hawaii candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.
27 statements from 6 candidates
2026 Hawaii Governor and Lieutenant Governor — General Election
2 candidates with matching statements · 16 statements
Encourage investments in wastewater systems, stormwater management, erosion control, and other infrastructure that protects public health and environmental quality.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Environment, energy, water, and resilience
Candidate campaign source
Encourage investments in wastewater systems, stormwater management, erosion control, and other infrastructure that protects public health and environmental quality.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Hawaiʻi should strengthen its healthcare workforce, improve access across all islands, expand mental health services, and focus on prevention and early intervention that improve long-term health outcomes.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
Hawaiʻi should strengthen its healthcare workforce, improve access across all islands, expand mental health services, and focus on prevention and early intervention that improve long-term health outcomes.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Governor Josh Green is lowering healthcare costs for everyone in Hawaii by covering Obamacare subsidies for families who count on them, and bringing nearly $1 billion in federal investments for rural health statewide — so Hawaii families don’t have to choose between paying the rent or buying the med…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
Governor Josh Green is lowering healthcare costs for everyone in Hawaii by covering Obamacare subsidies for families who count on them, and bringing nearly $1 billion in federal investments for rural health statewide — so Hawaii families don’t have to choose between paying the rent or buying the medicine their children need.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026
My goal is to preserve the best of American health care while closing the unacceptable gaps in availability, affordability, access and quality. It is critical to get this right for current and future generations, and I believe we need a renewed national debate, including within Congress, on how best…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Share by Email
Candidate campaign source
My goal is to preserve the best of American health care while closing the unacceptable gaps in availability, affordability, access and quality. It is critical to get this right for current and future generations, and I believe we need a renewed national debate, including within Congress, on how best to do so. That is why it is critical for Congress to remain focused on protecting and improving the Affordable Care Act, lowering prescription drug prices and increasing investments in biomedical research. You can view a summary of my efforts in healthcare here (https://case.house.gov/uploadedfiles/healthcare_leg_history.pdf).
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026
I believe that our federal budget should not be, as it has become, a routine exercise, but instead a document and agenda that comprehensively address our nation’s needs and expenses in a fiscally sustainable way. We have urgent challenges, from climate change to health care and beyond, and we need a…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Fiscal Accountability
Candidate campaign source
I believe that our federal budget should not be, as it has become, a routine exercise, but instead a document and agenda that comprehensively address our nation’s needs and expenses in a fiscally sustainable way. We have urgent challenges, from climate change to health care and beyond, and we need a full and difficult debate on how best to balance their cost with our ability and commitment to raise and allocate scarce resources.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026
I oppose abortion. I also believe being pro-life must mean more than telling a frightened woman what she should not do. It must mean standing beside her and making it possible to keep the child she already loves—with practical support surrounding pregnancy, birth, housing, healthcare, childcare, wor…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Five Fights
Candidate campaign source
I oppose abortion. I also believe being pro-life must mean more than telling a frightened woman what she should not do. It must mean standing beside her and making it possible to keep the child she already loves—with practical support surrounding pregnancy, birth, housing, healthcare, childcare, work, and family stability.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 18, 2026
In addition, I was proud to stand with many of my colleagues to sponsor the Medicare for All Act of 2023. Getting sick or injured should never be the reason why someone goes into crippling debt. Healthcare is a human right, and I will continue to fight for this critical legislation until equitable h…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
In addition, I was proud to stand with many of my colleagues to sponsor the Medicare for All Act of 2023. Getting sick or injured should never be the reason why someone goes into crippling debt. Healthcare is a human right, and I will continue to fight for this critical legislation until equitable healthcare is a reality for all.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Our communities need improved access to healthcare and mental health services. Your zip code or the size of your paycheck should not dictate what services you are able to access or the quality of care you receive.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
Our communities need improved access to healthcare and mental health services. Your zip code or the size of your paycheck should not dictate what services you are able to access or the quality of care you receive.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
In my first term in Congress, I continued that vow and opposed all efforts by the House Republican majority to further restrict women’s healthcare, including by limiting access to mifepristone. I also cosponsored The Women’s Health Protection Act which would codify the right to abortion care and the…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Reproductive rights and health care
Candidate campaign source
In my first term in Congress, I continued that vow and opposed all efforts by the House Republican majority to further restrict women’s healthcare, including by limiting access to mifepristone. I also cosponsored The Women’s Health Protection Act which would codify the right to abortion care and the Right to Contraception Act which prevents federal, state, and local government entities from restricting access to or inhibiting the sale of contraceptives. Everyone should have access to the reproductive healthcare they need, and I will keep fighting until every person has the freedom to make decisions about their own body, life, and future, without interference from politicians.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Our efforts are focused on areas like expanding the capacity of rural hospitals and increasing the number of healthcare professionals through innovative approaches, such as mobile health clinics and enhanced telehealth services.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
Our efforts are focused on areas like expanding the capacity of rural hospitals and increasing the number of healthcare professionals through innovative approaches, such as mobile health clinics and enhanced telehealth services.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
This section matches specific health coverage, healthcare costs, access to care and public health terms in retained, attributed source text from published Hawaii candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.
Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.
Hawaii incumbents
What incumbents are proposing
Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current Hawaii legislators and Hawaii’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Hawaii’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
31 matching sponsorships or proposals · 26 Hawaii incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.
Rep. Adrian K. Tam
Hawaii House of Representatives, District 24 · D–HI
2 proposalsView proposals from Rep. Adrian K. TamHawaii Legislature · HB 1875
RELATING TO HEALTH CARE.
May 29, 2026 · Enacted · Act 59
Rep. Adrian K. Tam · Sponsored / Rep. Terez Amato · Sponsored / Rep. Tina Nakada Grandinetti · Sponsored / Rep. Linda Ichiyama · Sponsored / Rep. Greggor Ilagan · Sponsored / Rep. Kim Coco Iwamoto · Sponsored / Rep. Lisa Marten · Sponsored / Rep. Amy A. Perruso · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HB 1875 creates civil remedies for litigation targeting reproductive or gender-affirming care lawful in Hawaii, including injunctions, damages and litigation costs. Actions must be filed within six years after the abusive litigation begins or enforcement of its order or judgment is attempted. Standard payer actions concerning coverage, fraud, waste and lawful contract enforcement remain permitted. Malpractice insurers cannot refuse, cancel or decline renewal solely for providing, assisting or referring qualifying care consistent with accepted practice standards and Hawaii law; the listed sanctions and rate increases are prohibited when unsupported by the specified actuarial analysis. Health plans and insurers cannot terminate or refuse to renew participating-provider contracts solely because the provider provides or assists in the covered care. The abortion connection concerns reproductive-care protections, not every service covered by the law or proof of increased access.
Act 59, approved 2026-05-29. Approval, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
The fact counts reported abortions occurring in Hawaii, regardless of patient residence. Provider permissions and protections concern access to that care; they do not measure residents receiving care elsewhere. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Hawaii evidence context: Abortions reported by area of occurrence. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
SECTION 2. Chapter 323J, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding three new sections to be appropriately designated and to read as follows: "§323J- Abusive litigation; prohibited; remedies. (a) If a person or entity, whether or not acting under the color of law, engages in or attempts to engage in abusive litigation, or attempts to enforce any order or judgment issued in connection with any abusive litigation, any aggrieved person may bring a civil action against that person or entity in the circuit court of the circuit in which the aggrieved person resides or in which the aggrieved person accessed, received, provided, facilitated, or attempted to access, receive provide, or facilitate reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services. The civil actions may be for: (1) Injunctive relief; (2) Actual damages, including the amount of any judgment issued in connection with the abusive litigation; (3) Expenses, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the abusive litigation; (4) Expenses, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred to bring an action under this section; and (5) Punitive damages. (b) Any civil action filed pursuant to this section shall be filed within six years after the date the abusive litigation is commenced, or if the person or entity is attempting to enforce an order or a judgment, within six years after the date enforcement is attempted. (c) Notwithstanding any provision of this section, the requirements set forth herein shall not apply to prohibit standard health care actions or activities of a health payor regarding insurance coverage status, fraud, waste, or lawful activities of a health payor to enforce its rights under a contract with a person or entity. (d) For the purposes of this section: "Abusive litigation" means any litigation or other legal action, including civil, criminal, or administrative action, brought against another person or entity for accessing, receiving, providing, facilitating, or attempting to access, receive, provide, or facilitate reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services that are lawful under the laws of this State. "Aggrieved person" means: (1) A person or entity against whom abusive litigation is filed or prosecuted or against whom an order or judgment issued in connection with such abusive litigation is attempted to be enforced; or (2) The employer or principal of a person against whom abusive litigation is filed or prosecuted or against whom an order or a judgment issued in connection with such abusive litigation is attempted to be enforced if the action that forms the basis of the abusive litigation was performed within the scope of the person's employment or agency relationship. §323J- Medical malpractice insurance; prohibited actions. (a) Any insurer that issues medical malpractice insurance in this State shall not take a prohibited action against an applicant for, or the named insured under, a medical malpractice policy in this State solely because the applicant or insured has provided, or assisted in the provision of, reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services or made a referral for reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services; provided that the care provided by the applicant or insured was consistent with generally accepted standards of practice under the laws of this State and did not otherwise violate the laws of this State. (b) For the purposes of this section, "prohibited action" means: (1) Refusing to issue a medical malpractice policy; (2) Canceling or terminating a medical malpractice policy; (3) Refusing to renew a medical malpractice policy; or (4) Imposing any sanctions, fines, penalties, or rate increases that are not supported by actuarial analysis conducted in accordance with the applicable Actuarial Standards of Practice promulgated by the Actuarial Standards Board. §323J- Health carriers; prohibitions. No group health plan or health insurance insurer offering or renewing a health plan in this State shall terminate or refuse to renew a health care contract with a participating health care provider on the sole basis that the participating provider provides, or assists in the provision of, reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services."
Hawaii approves firearm-storage rules and purchaser notices
Apr 22, 2025 · Enacted · Act 22
Rep. David A. Tarnas · Sponsored / Rep. Terez Amato · Sponsored / Rep. Della Au Belatti · Sponsored / Rep. Luke A. Evslin · Sponsored / Rep. Tina Nakada Grandinetti · Sponsored / Rep. Kim Coco Iwamoto · Sponsored / Rep. Lisa Kitagawa · Sponsored / Rep. Nicole E. Lowen · Sponsored / Rep. Scot Z. Matayoshi · Sponsored / Rep. Ikaika Olds · Sponsored / Rep. Amy A. Perruso · Sponsored / Rep. Jackson D. Sayama · Sponsored / Rep. Gregg Takayama · Sponsored / Rep. Adrian K. Tam · Sponsored
Reviewed final Hawaii law
Secure firearm storage concerns the injury-prevention component of public health. It does not expand health-insurance coverage, measure mortality or demonstrate fewer injuries. Act 22 requires retail firearm sellers and transferers to provide a copy of the storage law. Storage can use a locked container or a tamper-resistant device, a location a reasonable person would consider secure, or carrying the firearm on or readily retrievable close to the person. Violations carry a fine up to $500; criminally negligent storage involving actual access by a minor under 18 is a misdemeanor under the additional knowledge and permission conditions. Strict civil liability covers injury or property damage within two years when the firearm was obtained because of a violation, subject to lawful self-defense, defense of another and unlawful-entry exceptions. Vehicles are excluded from the premises definition and section 134-11(a) exempt categories remain. Unlawful entry is also an exception to the minor-access offense. Notice violations are treated as unfair or deceptive practices. The act preserves previously matured rights, duties, penalties and proceedings and includes severability. Effective upon approval April 22, 2025. Later amendments, court orders, enforcement and actual injury or crime effects require separate review.
Act 22, approved 2025-04-22. Approval, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
Secure firearm storage concerns the injury-prevention component of public health. It does not expand health-insurance coverage, measure mortality or demonstrate fewer injuries. Act 22 requires retail firearm sellers and transferers to provide a copy of the storage law. Storage can use a locked container or a tamper-resistant device, a location a reasonable person would consider secure, or carrying the firearm on or readily retrievable close to the person. Violations carry a fine up to $500; criminally negligent storage involving actual access by a minor under 18 is a misdemeanor under the additional knowledge and permission conditions. Strict civil liability covers injury or property damage within two years when the firearm was obtained because of a violation, subject to lawful self-defense, defense of another and unlawful-entry exceptions. Vehicles are excluded from the premises definition and section 134-11(a) exempt categories remain. Unlawful entry is also an exception to the minor-access offense. Notice violations are treated as unfair or deceptive practices. The act preserves previously matured rights, duties, penalties and proceedings and includes severability. Effective upon approval April 22, 2025. Later amendments, court orders, enforcement and actual injury or crime effects require separate review. The chart does not isolate this action’s effect.
Retained Hawaii evidence context: Firearm deaths · crime · reviewed Hawaii policy context · health · reviewed Hawaii policy context. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The purpose of this Act is to protect public safety by providing for the safe and secure storage of firearms.
Hawaii House of Representatives, District 46 · D–HI
2 proposalsView proposals from Rep. Amy A. PerrusoHawaii Legislature · HB 1875
RELATING TO HEALTH CARE.
May 29, 2026 · Enacted · Act 59
Rep. Adrian K. Tam · Sponsored / Rep. Terez Amato · Sponsored / Rep. Tina Nakada Grandinetti · Sponsored / Rep. Linda Ichiyama · Sponsored / Rep. Greggor Ilagan · Sponsored / Rep. Kim Coco Iwamoto · Sponsored / Rep. Lisa Marten · Sponsored / Rep. Amy A. Perruso · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HB 1875 creates civil remedies for litigation targeting reproductive or gender-affirming care lawful in Hawaii, including injunctions, damages and litigation costs. Actions must be filed within six years after the abusive litigation begins or enforcement of its order or judgment is attempted. Standard payer actions concerning coverage, fraud, waste and lawful contract enforcement remain permitted. Malpractice insurers cannot refuse, cancel or decline renewal solely for providing, assisting or referring qualifying care consistent with accepted practice standards and Hawaii law; the listed sanctions and rate increases are prohibited when unsupported by the specified actuarial analysis. Health plans and insurers cannot terminate or refuse to renew participating-provider contracts solely because the provider provides or assists in the covered care. The abortion connection concerns reproductive-care protections, not every service covered by the law or proof of increased access.
Act 59, approved 2026-05-29. Approval, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
The fact counts reported abortions occurring in Hawaii, regardless of patient residence. Provider permissions and protections concern access to that care; they do not measure residents receiving care elsewhere. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Hawaii evidence context: Abortions reported by area of occurrence. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
SECTION 2. Chapter 323J, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding three new sections to be appropriately designated and to read as follows: "§323J- Abusive litigation; prohibited; remedies. (a) If a person or entity, whether or not acting under the color of law, engages in or attempts to engage in abusive litigation, or attempts to enforce any order or judgment issued in connection with any abusive litigation, any aggrieved person may bring a civil action against that person or entity in the circuit court of the circuit in which the aggrieved person resides or in which the aggrieved person accessed, received, provided, facilitated, or attempted to access, receive provide, or facilitate reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services. The civil actions may be for: (1) Injunctive relief; (2) Actual damages, including the amount of any judgment issued in connection with the abusive litigation; (3) Expenses, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the abusive litigation; (4) Expenses, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred to bring an action under this section; and (5) Punitive damages. (b) Any civil action filed pursuant to this section shall be filed within six years after the date the abusive litigation is commenced, or if the person or entity is attempting to enforce an order or a judgment, within six years after the date enforcement is attempted. (c) Notwithstanding any provision of this section, the requirements set forth herein shall not apply to prohibit standard health care actions or activities of a health payor regarding insurance coverage status, fraud, waste, or lawful activities of a health payor to enforce its rights under a contract with a person or entity. (d) For the purposes of this section: "Abusive litigation" means any litigation or other legal action, including civil, criminal, or administrative action, brought against another person or entity for accessing, receiving, providing, facilitating, or attempting to access, receive, provide, or facilitate reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services that are lawful under the laws of this State. "Aggrieved person" means: (1) A person or entity against whom abusive litigation is filed or prosecuted or against whom an order or judgment issued in connection with such abusive litigation is attempted to be enforced; or (2) The employer or principal of a person against whom abusive litigation is filed or prosecuted or against whom an order or a judgment issued in connection with such abusive litigation is attempted to be enforced if the action that forms the basis of the abusive litigation was performed within the scope of the person's employment or agency relationship. §323J- Medical malpractice insurance; prohibited actions. (a) Any insurer that issues medical malpractice insurance in this State shall not take a prohibited action against an applicant for, or the named insured under, a medical malpractice policy in this State solely because the applicant or insured has provided, or assisted in the provision of, reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services or made a referral for reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services; provided that the care provided by the applicant or insured was consistent with generally accepted standards of practice under the laws of this State and did not otherwise violate the laws of this State. (b) For the purposes of this section, "prohibited action" means: (1) Refusing to issue a medical malpractice policy; (2) Canceling or terminating a medical malpractice policy; (3) Refusing to renew a medical malpractice policy; or (4) Imposing any sanctions, fines, penalties, or rate increases that are not supported by actuarial analysis conducted in accordance with the applicable Actuarial Standards of Practice promulgated by the Actuarial Standards Board. §323J- Health carriers; prohibitions. No group health plan or health insurance insurer offering or renewing a health plan in this State shall terminate or refuse to renew a health care contract with a participating health care provider on the sole basis that the participating provider provides, or assists in the provision of, reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services."
Hawaii approves firearm-storage rules and purchaser notices
Apr 22, 2025 · Enacted · Act 22
Rep. David A. Tarnas · Sponsored / Rep. Terez Amato · Sponsored / Rep. Della Au Belatti · Sponsored / Rep. Luke A. Evslin · Sponsored / Rep. Tina Nakada Grandinetti · Sponsored / Rep. Kim Coco Iwamoto · Sponsored / Rep. Lisa Kitagawa · Sponsored / Rep. Nicole E. Lowen · Sponsored / Rep. Scot Z. Matayoshi · Sponsored / Rep. Ikaika Olds · Sponsored / Rep. Amy A. Perruso · Sponsored / Rep. Jackson D. Sayama · Sponsored / Rep. Gregg Takayama · Sponsored / Rep. Adrian K. Tam · Sponsored
Reviewed final Hawaii law
Secure firearm storage concerns the injury-prevention component of public health. It does not expand health-insurance coverage, measure mortality or demonstrate fewer injuries. Act 22 requires retail firearm sellers and transferers to provide a copy of the storage law. Storage can use a locked container or a tamper-resistant device, a location a reasonable person would consider secure, or carrying the firearm on or readily retrievable close to the person. Violations carry a fine up to $500; criminally negligent storage involving actual access by a minor under 18 is a misdemeanor under the additional knowledge and permission conditions. Strict civil liability covers injury or property damage within two years when the firearm was obtained because of a violation, subject to lawful self-defense, defense of another and unlawful-entry exceptions. Vehicles are excluded from the premises definition and section 134-11(a) exempt categories remain. Unlawful entry is also an exception to the minor-access offense. Notice violations are treated as unfair or deceptive practices. The act preserves previously matured rights, duties, penalties and proceedings and includes severability. Effective upon approval April 22, 2025. Later amendments, court orders, enforcement and actual injury or crime effects require separate review.
Act 22, approved 2025-04-22. Approval, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
Secure firearm storage concerns the injury-prevention component of public health. It does not expand health-insurance coverage, measure mortality or demonstrate fewer injuries. Act 22 requires retail firearm sellers and transferers to provide a copy of the storage law. Storage can use a locked container or a tamper-resistant device, a location a reasonable person would consider secure, or carrying the firearm on or readily retrievable close to the person. Violations carry a fine up to $500; criminally negligent storage involving actual access by a minor under 18 is a misdemeanor under the additional knowledge and permission conditions. Strict civil liability covers injury or property damage within two years when the firearm was obtained because of a violation, subject to lawful self-defense, defense of another and unlawful-entry exceptions. Vehicles are excluded from the premises definition and section 134-11(a) exempt categories remain. Unlawful entry is also an exception to the minor-access offense. Notice violations are treated as unfair or deceptive practices. The act preserves previously matured rights, duties, penalties and proceedings and includes severability. Effective upon approval April 22, 2025. Later amendments, court orders, enforcement and actual injury or crime effects require separate review. The chart does not isolate this action’s effect.
Retained Hawaii evidence context: Firearm deaths · crime · reviewed Hawaii policy context · health · reviewed Hawaii policy context. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The purpose of this Act is to protect public safety by providing for the safe and secure storage of firearms.
Hawaii House of Representatives, District 8 · D–HI
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. David A. TarnasHawaii Legislature · HB 125
Hawaii approves firearm-storage rules and purchaser notices
Apr 22, 2025 · Enacted · Act 22
Rep. David A. Tarnas · Sponsored / Rep. Terez Amato · Sponsored / Rep. Della Au Belatti · Sponsored / Rep. Luke A. Evslin · Sponsored / Rep. Tina Nakada Grandinetti · Sponsored / Rep. Kim Coco Iwamoto · Sponsored / Rep. Lisa Kitagawa · Sponsored / Rep. Nicole E. Lowen · Sponsored / Rep. Scot Z. Matayoshi · Sponsored / Rep. Ikaika Olds · Sponsored / Rep. Amy A. Perruso · Sponsored / Rep. Jackson D. Sayama · Sponsored / Rep. Gregg Takayama · Sponsored / Rep. Adrian K. Tam · Sponsored
Reviewed final Hawaii law
Secure firearm storage concerns the injury-prevention component of public health. It does not expand health-insurance coverage, measure mortality or demonstrate fewer injuries. Act 22 requires retail firearm sellers and transferers to provide a copy of the storage law. Storage can use a locked container or a tamper-resistant device, a location a reasonable person would consider secure, or carrying the firearm on or readily retrievable close to the person. Violations carry a fine up to $500; criminally negligent storage involving actual access by a minor under 18 is a misdemeanor under the additional knowledge and permission conditions. Strict civil liability covers injury or property damage within two years when the firearm was obtained because of a violation, subject to lawful self-defense, defense of another and unlawful-entry exceptions. Vehicles are excluded from the premises definition and section 134-11(a) exempt categories remain. Unlawful entry is also an exception to the minor-access offense. Notice violations are treated as unfair or deceptive practices. The act preserves previously matured rights, duties, penalties and proceedings and includes severability. Effective upon approval April 22, 2025. Later amendments, court orders, enforcement and actual injury or crime effects require separate review.
Act 22, approved 2025-04-22. Approval, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
Secure firearm storage concerns the injury-prevention component of public health. It does not expand health-insurance coverage, measure mortality or demonstrate fewer injuries. Act 22 requires retail firearm sellers and transferers to provide a copy of the storage law. Storage can use a locked container or a tamper-resistant device, a location a reasonable person would consider secure, or carrying the firearm on or readily retrievable close to the person. Violations carry a fine up to $500; criminally negligent storage involving actual access by a minor under 18 is a misdemeanor under the additional knowledge and permission conditions. Strict civil liability covers injury or property damage within two years when the firearm was obtained because of a violation, subject to lawful self-defense, defense of another and unlawful-entry exceptions. Vehicles are excluded from the premises definition and section 134-11(a) exempt categories remain. Unlawful entry is also an exception to the minor-access offense. Notice violations are treated as unfair or deceptive practices. The act preserves previously matured rights, duties, penalties and proceedings and includes severability. Effective upon approval April 22, 2025. Later amendments, court orders, enforcement and actual injury or crime effects require separate review. The chart does not isolate this action’s effect.
Retained Hawaii evidence context: Firearm deaths · crime · reviewed Hawaii policy context · health · reviewed Hawaii policy context. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The purpose of this Act is to protect public safety by providing for the safe and secure storage of firearms.
Hawaii House of Representatives, District 26 · D–HI
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Della Au BelattiHawaii Legislature · HB 125
Hawaii approves firearm-storage rules and purchaser notices
Apr 22, 2025 · Enacted · Act 22
Rep. David A. Tarnas · Sponsored / Rep. Terez Amato · Sponsored / Rep. Della Au Belatti · Sponsored / Rep. Luke A. Evslin · Sponsored / Rep. Tina Nakada Grandinetti · Sponsored / Rep. Kim Coco Iwamoto · Sponsored / Rep. Lisa Kitagawa · Sponsored / Rep. Nicole E. Lowen · Sponsored / Rep. Scot Z. Matayoshi · Sponsored / Rep. Ikaika Olds · Sponsored / Rep. Amy A. Perruso · Sponsored / Rep. Jackson D. Sayama · Sponsored / Rep. Gregg Takayama · Sponsored / Rep. Adrian K. Tam · Sponsored
Reviewed final Hawaii law
Secure firearm storage concerns the injury-prevention component of public health. It does not expand health-insurance coverage, measure mortality or demonstrate fewer injuries. Act 22 requires retail firearm sellers and transferers to provide a copy of the storage law. Storage can use a locked container or a tamper-resistant device, a location a reasonable person would consider secure, or carrying the firearm on or readily retrievable close to the person. Violations carry a fine up to $500; criminally negligent storage involving actual access by a minor under 18 is a misdemeanor under the additional knowledge and permission conditions. Strict civil liability covers injury or property damage within two years when the firearm was obtained because of a violation, subject to lawful self-defense, defense of another and unlawful-entry exceptions. Vehicles are excluded from the premises definition and section 134-11(a) exempt categories remain. Unlawful entry is also an exception to the minor-access offense. Notice violations are treated as unfair or deceptive practices. The act preserves previously matured rights, duties, penalties and proceedings and includes severability. Effective upon approval April 22, 2025. Later amendments, court orders, enforcement and actual injury or crime effects require separate review.
Act 22, approved 2025-04-22. Approval, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
Secure firearm storage concerns the injury-prevention component of public health. It does not expand health-insurance coverage, measure mortality or demonstrate fewer injuries. Act 22 requires retail firearm sellers and transferers to provide a copy of the storage law. Storage can use a locked container or a tamper-resistant device, a location a reasonable person would consider secure, or carrying the firearm on or readily retrievable close to the person. Violations carry a fine up to $500; criminally negligent storage involving actual access by a minor under 18 is a misdemeanor under the additional knowledge and permission conditions. Strict civil liability covers injury or property damage within two years when the firearm was obtained because of a violation, subject to lawful self-defense, defense of another and unlawful-entry exceptions. Vehicles are excluded from the premises definition and section 134-11(a) exempt categories remain. Unlawful entry is also an exception to the minor-access offense. Notice violations are treated as unfair or deceptive practices. The act preserves previously matured rights, duties, penalties and proceedings and includes severability. Effective upon approval April 22, 2025. Later amendments, court orders, enforcement and actual injury or crime effects require separate review. The chart does not isolate this action’s effect.
Retained Hawaii evidence context: Firearm deaths · crime · reviewed Hawaii policy context · health · reviewed Hawaii policy context. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The purpose of this Act is to protect public safety by providing for the safe and secure storage of firearms.
Hawaii approves firearm-storage rules and purchaser notices
Apr 22, 2025 · Enacted · Act 22
Rep. David A. Tarnas · Sponsored / Rep. Terez Amato · Sponsored / Rep. Della Au Belatti · Sponsored / Rep. Luke A. Evslin · Sponsored / Rep. Tina Nakada Grandinetti · Sponsored / Rep. Kim Coco Iwamoto · Sponsored / Rep. Lisa Kitagawa · Sponsored / Rep. Nicole E. Lowen · Sponsored / Rep. Scot Z. Matayoshi · Sponsored / Rep. Ikaika Olds · Sponsored / Rep. Amy A. Perruso · Sponsored / Rep. Jackson D. Sayama · Sponsored / Rep. Gregg Takayama · Sponsored / Rep. Adrian K. Tam · Sponsored
Reviewed final Hawaii law
Secure firearm storage concerns the injury-prevention component of public health. It does not expand health-insurance coverage, measure mortality or demonstrate fewer injuries. Act 22 requires retail firearm sellers and transferers to provide a copy of the storage law. Storage can use a locked container or a tamper-resistant device, a location a reasonable person would consider secure, or carrying the firearm on or readily retrievable close to the person. Violations carry a fine up to $500; criminally negligent storage involving actual access by a minor under 18 is a misdemeanor under the additional knowledge and permission conditions. Strict civil liability covers injury or property damage within two years when the firearm was obtained because of a violation, subject to lawful self-defense, defense of another and unlawful-entry exceptions. Vehicles are excluded from the premises definition and section 134-11(a) exempt categories remain. Unlawful entry is also an exception to the minor-access offense. Notice violations are treated as unfair or deceptive practices. The act preserves previously matured rights, duties, penalties and proceedings and includes severability. Effective upon approval April 22, 2025. Later amendments, court orders, enforcement and actual injury or crime effects require separate review.
Act 22, approved 2025-04-22. Approval, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
Secure firearm storage concerns the injury-prevention component of public health. It does not expand health-insurance coverage, measure mortality or demonstrate fewer injuries. Act 22 requires retail firearm sellers and transferers to provide a copy of the storage law. Storage can use a locked container or a tamper-resistant device, a location a reasonable person would consider secure, or carrying the firearm on or readily retrievable close to the person. Violations carry a fine up to $500; criminally negligent storage involving actual access by a minor under 18 is a misdemeanor under the additional knowledge and permission conditions. Strict civil liability covers injury or property damage within two years when the firearm was obtained because of a violation, subject to lawful self-defense, defense of another and unlawful-entry exceptions. Vehicles are excluded from the premises definition and section 134-11(a) exempt categories remain. Unlawful entry is also an exception to the minor-access offense. Notice violations are treated as unfair or deceptive practices. The act preserves previously matured rights, duties, penalties and proceedings and includes severability. Effective upon approval April 22, 2025. Later amendments, court orders, enforcement and actual injury or crime effects require separate review. The chart does not isolate this action’s effect.
Retained Hawaii evidence context: Firearm deaths · crime · reviewed Hawaii policy context · health · reviewed Hawaii policy context. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The purpose of this Act is to protect public safety by providing for the safe and secure storage of firearms.
Rep. Adrian K. Tam · Sponsored / Rep. Terez Amato · Sponsored / Rep. Tina Nakada Grandinetti · Sponsored / Rep. Linda Ichiyama · Sponsored / Rep. Greggor Ilagan · Sponsored / Rep. Kim Coco Iwamoto · Sponsored / Rep. Lisa Marten · Sponsored / Rep. Amy A. Perruso · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HB 1875 creates civil remedies for litigation targeting reproductive or gender-affirming care lawful in Hawaii, including injunctions, damages and litigation costs. Actions must be filed within six years after the abusive litigation begins or enforcement of its order or judgment is attempted. Standard payer actions concerning coverage, fraud, waste and lawful contract enforcement remain permitted. Malpractice insurers cannot refuse, cancel or decline renewal solely for providing, assisting or referring qualifying care consistent with accepted practice standards and Hawaii law; the listed sanctions and rate increases are prohibited when unsupported by the specified actuarial analysis. Health plans and insurers cannot terminate or refuse to renew participating-provider contracts solely because the provider provides or assists in the covered care. The abortion connection concerns reproductive-care protections, not every service covered by the law or proof of increased access.
Act 59, approved 2026-05-29. Approval, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
The fact counts reported abortions occurring in Hawaii, regardless of patient residence. Provider permissions and protections concern access to that care; they do not measure residents receiving care elsewhere. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Hawaii evidence context: Abortions reported by area of occurrence. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
SECTION 2. Chapter 323J, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding three new sections to be appropriately designated and to read as follows: "§323J- Abusive litigation; prohibited; remedies. (a) If a person or entity, whether or not acting under the color of law, engages in or attempts to engage in abusive litigation, or attempts to enforce any order or judgment issued in connection with any abusive litigation, any aggrieved person may bring a civil action against that person or entity in the circuit court of the circuit in which the aggrieved person resides or in which the aggrieved person accessed, received, provided, facilitated, or attempted to access, receive provide, or facilitate reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services. The civil actions may be for: (1) Injunctive relief; (2) Actual damages, including the amount of any judgment issued in connection with the abusive litigation; (3) Expenses, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the abusive litigation; (4) Expenses, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred to bring an action under this section; and (5) Punitive damages. (b) Any civil action filed pursuant to this section shall be filed within six years after the date the abusive litigation is commenced, or if the person or entity is attempting to enforce an order or a judgment, within six years after the date enforcement is attempted. (c) Notwithstanding any provision of this section, the requirements set forth herein shall not apply to prohibit standard health care actions or activities of a health payor regarding insurance coverage status, fraud, waste, or lawful activities of a health payor to enforce its rights under a contract with a person or entity. (d) For the purposes of this section: "Abusive litigation" means any litigation or other legal action, including civil, criminal, or administrative action, brought against another person or entity for accessing, receiving, providing, facilitating, or attempting to access, receive, provide, or facilitate reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services that are lawful under the laws of this State. "Aggrieved person" means: (1) A person or entity against whom abusive litigation is filed or prosecuted or against whom an order or judgment issued in connection with such abusive litigation is attempted to be enforced; or (2) The employer or principal of a person against whom abusive litigation is filed or prosecuted or against whom an order or a judgment issued in connection with such abusive litigation is attempted to be enforced if the action that forms the basis of the abusive litigation was performed within the scope of the person's employment or agency relationship. §323J- Medical malpractice insurance; prohibited actions. (a) Any insurer that issues medical malpractice insurance in this State shall not take a prohibited action against an applicant for, or the named insured under, a medical malpractice policy in this State solely because the applicant or insured has provided, or assisted in the provision of, reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services or made a referral for reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services; provided that the care provided by the applicant or insured was consistent with generally accepted standards of practice under the laws of this State and did not otherwise violate the laws of this State. (b) For the purposes of this section, "prohibited action" means: (1) Refusing to issue a medical malpractice policy; (2) Canceling or terminating a medical malpractice policy; (3) Refusing to renew a medical malpractice policy; or (4) Imposing any sanctions, fines, penalties, or rate increases that are not supported by actuarial analysis conducted in accordance with the applicable Actuarial Standards of Practice promulgated by the Actuarial Standards Board. §323J- Health carriers; prohibitions. No group health plan or health insurance insurer offering or renewing a health plan in this State shall terminate or refuse to renew a health care contract with a participating health care provider on the sole basis that the participating provider provides, or assists in the provision of, reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services."
Only current Hawaii officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.
Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a Hawaii statistic. Collection reviewed Oct 6, 2026.
Sources & methods
Every section retains its primary sources, units, reporting periods and comparison limits. Maps, graphs and tables use the same observation and cohort. All 50 states are listed; D.C. and territories are excluded. Missing and suppressed values remain unavailable and never become zero.
#1 is the highest measured value. Equal source values share a rank and leave gaps (1, 2, 2, 4). Ranks use source precision and are descriptive, not a score of the state. Survey uncertainty and reporting coverage can limit comparisons. Published U.S. benchmarks are used where available; a state average is not substituted.
Hawaii snapshots and fiscal sources keep their own dates and accounting scope. National events and federal distribution explainers describe national context. Actions and statements are filtered to Hawaii, retain their reviewed evidence, and do not establish that a policy caused a measured change.
Retained state source collections assembled October 5, 2026. Original review and source dates remain visible. Refreshing this page does not refresh an official data release.