House panel advances bill to streamline medical release for terminally ill inmates after narrow vote

The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday voted 15–11 to report House Bill 150, a measure that would replace the current compassionate-release provision in Title 42 and create a streamlined judicial process for medical release of seriously ill incarcerated people.

Supporters said the bill would save taxpayer money and allow courts to relieve the Department of Corrections (DOC) of long-term medical care for inmates who pose little public-safety risk. Representative Kajewski, the bill sponsor, described the measure as “a real pathway to medical release” and said it aims to prevent deaths while petitions await review.

The bill would repeal section 9777 of Title 42 and replace it with a new statute titled “modification of an imposed term of imprisonment for reason of illness,” counsel Michael Vitale told the committee. Under the bill, a sentencing court may modify a term of imprisonment after considering factors including input from victims, time served, the inmate’s age and health, the proposed post-release care plan, and the inmate’s incarceration record. The court would retain authority to deny release if the inmate “would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to the community,” Vitale said.

Lawmakers supporting the measure argued the DOC spends hundreds of millions annually on inmate medical care and that understaffing and vacancy rates have strained in‑facility care. Representative Prodzinski cited DOC’s reported annual medical spending and said “when healthcare workers are stretched beyond their capacity, the quality of care suffers.” Representative Ecker framed the bill as fiscally responsible, noting it targets “the least violent” individuals in end‑stage medical condition and could move some people to more appropriate, less costly care settings.

Opponents raised concerns the bill’s definitions are too broad. Representative Klunk said the statutory definition of “chronic and debilitating”—which includes persistent or permanent conditions, conditions that require ongoing care or medication, or those that impair daily self‑care—could sweep in a large number of people and unintentionally expand eligibility. He said that, as written, conditions such as diabetes, arthritis or controlled chronic illnesses “could potentially fall in here” and that victims’ interests must be safeguarded.

Sponsor Kajewski responded that the bill is intended to strike a balance between being sufficiently specific and not overly prescriptive, and said the courts would exercise judgment on whether an applicant meets the threshold. He also pointed out the bill requires courts to consider input from the Office of Victim Advocate and any victims related to the petition.

Several committee members urged additional guardrails or related legislation on geriatric parole and grant programs to support prevention or post‑release care; Chairman Kaufman said he believed a bipartisan product was possible but that the bill in its current form warranted a no vote from him. The committee nevertheless voted to report the bill.

The measure takes effect in 60 days, counsel said. No amendments were adopted at the committee meeting.

Implementation details—such as how courts will evaluate medical evidence, the standards for “unreasonable risk,” and how post‑release care plans will be funded—were discussed but not resolved at the hearing. Sponsors and opponents said they expect further negotiations before floor action.