As long-time readers of this Blog may be aware, Pennsylvania is one of the few U.S. states that still has an active “filial support” law that can sometimes be used to compel adult children to “care for and maintain or financially assist” an “indigent” parent. 23 Pa.C.S. Section 4603 (a)(1). The Pennsylvania Legislature raised the profile of a somewhat dormant, but long-standing Colonial era statute, by moving it from Welfare laws into the Domestic Relations laws in 2005. 
A bit of background helps. Most of the modern Pennsylvania disputes — from approximately 1995 to present — have been in the context of costs for care for a parent in a nursing home, where the parent has been found to be ineligible for Medicaid benefits (known as “Medical Assistance” in Pennsylvania) for long-term care. And the most compelling cases for such a result are where the targeted adult child has misused the parent’s financial resources. For example, in one well known case, the adult daughter used a Power of Attorney to admit her mother to the nursing home, but also to gift herself with over $100,000 from her mother’s bank accounts, triggering her mother’s ineligibility. Presbyterian Medical Center v. Budd, 832 A.2d 1066 (Pa. Super Ct. 2003).
However, more controversial cases have also arisen. For example in 2012, an adult son was found liable for his mother’s nursing home care, but without any allegations that he was engaged in self-dealing or deceptive behavior towards the nursing home. See Health Care & Retirement Corp. of America v. Pittas, 46 A.3d 719 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012).
There have been multiple attempts to repeal Pennsylvania’s filial support law, but most have stalled in a committee without any action. The latest bill, with unanimous support in the Pennsylvania House, appears to have “legs.” The key change is that rather than an entire repeal of the law, the grounds for liability would become more narrow: someone asserting a family member’s liability for care would have to allege and prove that family member either personally took or benefited from non-exempt transfers during the last five years OR was someone who “does not cooperate with the [Human Services] department, a nursing facility, a provider or other person in the medical assistance eligibility process.”
Democrats were the sponsors of HB 2094 in the Pennsylvania House, and the Pennsylvania Senate is currently controlled by Republicans (all of which “could” change along with much more in the next election). But, the fact that the vote on the House bill was unanimous (with one member abstaining) suggests to me there has been a lot of hard work by both parties to get this law into a shape where they can agree.