SB 6105
In CommitteeSenate
Medical debt garnishments
Raising the exemption from garnishment of earnings for judgments arising from medical debt.
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 increases protections for workers whose wages are garnished for medical debt by raising the amount of pay they can keep—up to $60 × state minimum wage or 80% of disposable earnings, whichever is greater. It also requires clearer labeling on court forms to help workers and employers identify which exemption rules apply based on the type of debt.
- Raises the wage garnishment exemption for medical debt to the greater of $60 × state minimum wage or 80% of disposable earnings per week.
- Maintains existing exemptions for other debts: $35 × state minimum wage or 80% of disposable earnings for other consumer debt; $50 × highest minimum wage or 85% of disposable earnings for private student loan debt.
- Requires court forms and notices to clearly label the type of debt (medical, private student loan, or other consumer) so workers and employers know which exemption rules apply.
- Updates the notice given to debtors to explain their exemption rights and how to claim them, including specific instructions for wage and bank account garnishments.
- Clarifies that employers may charge a processing fee of up to $20 for the first garnishment answer and $10 for the second, but only on the nonexempt portion of wages.
Who is affected
- Workers with medical debt — Workers with medical debt judgments face higher wage garnishment protections—up to $60 × state minimum wage or 80% of disposable earnings, whichever is greater—making it harder for creditors to take their pay.
- Workers with other consumer debt — Workers with other consumer debt (e.g., credit cards, personal loans) retain existing protections—up to $35 × state minimum wage or 80% of disposable earnings—but now have clearer labeling on garnishment forms.
- Workers with private student loan debt — Workers with private student loan debt keep enhanced protections—85% of disposable earnings or 50 × highest minimum wage in state—and now see explicit labeling on court forms.
- Employers and payroll departments — Employers must follow updated garnishment forms and exemption calculations, and may charge a processing fee of up to $20 for the first answer and $10 for the second.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Workers with medical debt gain significantly stronger wage garnishment protections—up to $60 × state minimum wage or 80% of disposable earnings—reducing the risk of wage garnishment wiping out essential income for food, transit, and childcare. This is especially impactful for low- and middle-income workers, who are disproportionately affected by surprise medical debt and lack liquid assets to absorb garnishment shocks.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)(ii)Mandatory labeling of debt type on court forms and enhanced notices clarify exemption rights, empowering workers to assert protections and reducing the risk of employers or courts applying incorrect exemption thresholds—this improves due process and reduces information asymmetry that often disadvantages low-income debtors.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2 & Sec. 3By shielding more of a worker’s paycheck from garnishment for medical debt, the bill reduces the financial penalty for seeking care—potentially mitigating the “debt trap” that deters people from seeking timely treatment or following up on care plans, especially for chronic conditions.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)(ii)Higher exemptions for medical debt reduce the likelihood that workers will be unable to pay rent after a garnishment, thereby lowering eviction risk—particularly important in Washington, where eviction filings remain high and housing insecurity is closely tied to health outcomes.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)(ii)The bill ensures exemptions apply regardless of pay frequency (weekly, monthly, etc.), preventing employers from manipulating pay schedules to minimize exempt amounts—this structural safeguard improves fairness and predictability for workers on irregular or commission-based pay.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5)
Potential Concerns (4)
The bill does not increase penalties or enforcement mechanisms for wage garnishment fraud or abuse, potentially leaving vulnerable workers exposed to erroneous or malicious garnishment filings by aggressive debt collectors—though it raises exemptions, it does not add safeguards against frivolous lawsuits or misidentification of debt type.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)(ii)While the medical debt exemption rises to $60 × state minimum wage (e.g., $60 × $15.74 = $944.40/week in 2026), this still permits garnishment of up to 20% of earnings—meaning low-wage workers earning near the exemption threshold may still face severe cash-flow disruption, especially if they have multiple garnishments or irregular income.
FinancialLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)(i) & (ii)The exemption does not apply to rent arrears or eviction-related judgments, so workers with medical debt may still face displacement if they fall behind on housing payments while defending against garnishment or managing reduced take-home pay.
HousingLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)(ii)Employers with limited HR/payroll staff may face increased administrative burden in correctly calculating and applying tiered exemptions by debt type, especially if court forms are misfiled or mislabeled—though the $20/$10 fee offsets some cost, small employers may still struggle with compliance.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)(ii)
Who Is Most Affected
Low- and middle-income workers with medical debt benefit most: they gain stronger protections against income loss, clearer rights, and reduced risk of eviction or utility shutoff due to garnishment. The benefit is concentrated among those with medical judgments—especially those without insurance or with high out-of-pocket costs.
Workers with other consumer debt (e.g., credit cards, personal loans) retain existing protections but see no increase—however, clearer labeling helps them avoid misapplication of exemption rules. Net impact is slightly positive but less than for medical debt holders.
Workers with private student loan debt retain their existing enhanced exemption (85% or $50 × highest minimum wage) and gain clearer labeling, but no increase in protection. Since many are younger and lower-income, this reinforces existing safeguards—net positive but not new.
Employers gain a small, capped processing fee ($20/$10) and clearer instructions, reducing legal risk from misapplied garnishments. However, payroll departments in small businesses may face added compliance burden without reimbursement—net slightly negative for small employers, neutral for large ones.
Creditors (especially medical providers and collection agencies) face reduced recovery potential on medical debt judgments, which may incentivize more aggressive pre-judgment collection or higher interest/fees on services—net negative for creditors, though large debt buyers may absorb this better than small providers.