Right-to-repair bill for mobility devices draws strong testimony from users and repair groups

House Bill 18-26, discussed in the Consumer Protection & Business Committee on Feb. 19, would require original equipment manufacturers of mobility devices — including power wheelchairs, manual wheelchairs, mobility scooters and power-assist equipment — to make documentation, parts, embedded software, firmware and tools available on fair and reasonable terms to independent repair providers and device owners.

Megan Mulvihill, staff to the committee, told members that the bill preserves certain exceptions: manufacturers are not required to disclose trade secrets or sell parts that are no longer available; disclosure does not alter agreements between manufacturers and authorized repair providers; and manufacturers and authorized repair providers retain certain contractual protections. Violations would be per se violations of the Consumer Protection Act, Mulvihill said.

Representative Gregersen, the bill’s sponsor, said the measure responds to practical access issues for Washingtonians who rely on mobility devices for daily life. “People that use powered wheelchairs and powered equipment need them for all day everyday use,” the sponsor said, noting that repair delays can affect work, travel and safety.

Public testimony emphasized frequent and lengthy repair delays and the absence of standardized technician certification. Marcia Cutting, who said she serves on the Governor’s Committee on Disability Issues and Employment, described a wheelchair with a listed price of $38,000 that spent weeks in a manufacturer’s shop and ultimately was scrapped after never being fixed. “Without functioning chairs, we risk being confined to our homes or worse, to our beds where we risk getting devastating pressure injuries,” Cutting said.

Wayne Grau, executive director of NCART (National Coalition for Assistive and Rehab Technology), expressed support for right to repair but urged care on medical-device safety. “Power wheelchairs are regulated by the FDA as Class II medical devices,” Grau said; he asked the committee to work with the disability community and clinical stakeholders to address safety and clinical concerns.

Caregivers and users provided concrete examples of barriers: Burke Stansbury described months-long waits for parts and approvals for his son’s complex wheelchair and ventilator setup; Cecilia Black of Disability Rights Washington recounted a months-long search to identify a simple bearing size that left her temporarily unable to push her chair; and Matt Thompson, a volunteer who refurbishes wheelchairs, said volunteers have repaired more than 100 chairs in the past year and that the inability to access parts or technical information forced them to scrap about 60 units.

Supporters said the bill would lower costs and reduce time without mobility, while opponents or cautious stakeholders asked for narrowly tailored language to preserve clinical safety and avoid disclosures that could undermine device integrity. Committee staff noted the bill’s fiscal note as zero; testimony indicated some stakeholders want to move separate provider-authorization or preauthorization reforms to another bill.

The measure received robust, personal testimony but the committee did not take a final vote on HB 18-26 during the Feb. 19 meeting.

Ending note: advocates asked the committee to continue stakeholder engagement with people who use mobility devices and with clinical and industry representatives to refine exceptions for safety and trade secrets.