SB 5809
In CommitteeSenate
Cost savings
Generating cost savings to the state by repealing annual reports and an advisory committee.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill eliminates three specific annual reporting requirements and one advisory committee to reduce state administrative costs. It targets reports and committees that are either duplicative, no longer needed, or overdue, aiming to free up staff time and resources for higher-priority work.
- Repeals RCW 43.71C.100, which required an annual report on data confidentiality from the Department of Social and Health Services.
- Repeals RCW 70.330.020, which required the Department of Health to submit annual reports to the governor and legislature.
- Repeals RCW 71.24.546, which required a substance use recovery services plan, established a Substance Use Recovery Services Advisory Committee, and required annual reports from that committee.
- Eliminates the Substance Use Recovery Services Advisory Committee entirely.
- States the legislature’s intent to reduce administrative costs by removing reports and committees that are duplicative, outdated, or past their statutory reporting deadlines.
Who is affected
- State agencies (e.g., Department of Health, Department of Social and Health Services) — State agencies previously required to produce annual reports under the repealed laws will no longer need to compile and submit those reports, reducing staff time and administrative costs.
- Advisory committee members and volunteers — Members of the Substance Use Recovery Services Advisory Committee will no longer serve, as the committee is eliminated by the bill.
- Legislative staff and oversight bodies — Legislators and state staff who review or analyze the repealed reports will no longer receive or process those documents, streamlining oversight work.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill reduces redundant administrative burdens on state agencies, freeing up staff time and resources for higher-priority work—potentially improving responsiveness to urgent public needs without reducing core services.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(2)-(3); Sec. 2(1)-(3)Eliminating the Substance Use Recovery Services Advisory Committee and its reporting requirement is justified by the legislature’s finding that the committee’s work is duplicative or outdated; this streamlining may reduce overlap with existing state and local recovery initiatives (e.g., DHSS’s Recovery Washington program), avoiding redundant efforts.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1(3); Sec. 2(3)Removing the requirement for the Department of Health to submit an annual report to the governor and legislature may reduce bureaucratic overhead, especially if the same data are already collected and reported through other mechanisms (e.g., CDC grants, state health surveys, or electronic health information systems).
HealthcareRef: Sec. 1(3); Sec. 2(2)Repealing RCW 43.71C.100 eliminates a data confidentiality report that may have overlapped with existing privacy and security reporting required under federal laws (e.g., HIPAA) or other state cybersecurity mandates, reducing duplication.
HealthcareRef: Sec. 1(3); Sec. 2(1)The bill is projected to generate modest state cost savings by eliminating annual reporting requirements and one advisory committee, aligning with the legislature’s stated goal of identifying administrative efficiencies amid budget constraints.
FinancialRef: Sec. 1(1); Sec. 2(1)-(3)
Potential Concerns (5)
Eliminating the Substance Use Recovery Services Advisory Committee and its annual reporting requirement may reduce oversight and coordination of substance use recovery services, potentially weakening system-level accountability for program effectiveness and equity in service delivery.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 2(3); Sec. 1(3)Local governments and service providers that rely on state-submitted data or advisory guidance (e.g., for grant applications, program planning, or performance benchmarks) may lose access to standardized, legislatively mandated information that previously informed local decision-making.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(1)-(3); Sec. 1(3)The repeal of RCW 71.24.546 eliminates a statutory requirement for a state-level substance use recovery services plan and advisory committee, which could reduce structured, coordinated state-level planning for addiction treatment access and equity—particularly for vulnerable populations such as low-income individuals, unhoused people, and people of color.
HealthcareRef: Sec. 2(3); Sec. 1(3)Eliminating the Department of Health’s annual reporting requirement under RCW 70.330.020 may reduce transparency around public health initiatives (e.g., disease surveillance, health disparities, or emergency response performance), limiting public and legislative ability to assess program effectiveness and hold agencies accountable.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 2(2); Sec. 1(3)State agencies (e.g., DSHS, DOH) will save staff time previously spent compiling and submitting annual reports, but this is a minor administrative efficiency gain with no direct impact on private-sector employment or business operations.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 2(1); Sec. 1(3)
Who Is Most Affected
State agencies (e.g., DOH, DSHS) will experience reduced administrative workload and associated costs, but may lose a formalized mechanism for evaluating and reporting on program performance.
Volunteers and appointed committee members will lose their formal advisory roles; this is a small group, but the loss of structured civic engagement may affect community input into recovery services planning.
Legislative staff and oversight bodies (e.g., Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee) will no longer receive these specific reports, potentially simplifying oversight workflows—but may also lose a source of standardized data for evaluating program effectiveness.