According to Elizabeth New (Hovde) of the Washington Policy Center, the solvency concerns that already exist will worsen if more people leave this misguided program with a false promise
Elizabeth New (Hovde)
Washington Policy Center
State agencies and the Long-Term Services and Supports (LTSS) Trust Commission are doing a lot of work to get WA Cares’ ducks in a row. At a meeting on Wednesday, progress was made toward recommending minimum provider qualifications and maximum provider payments that will be in play for eventual beneficiaries of WA Cares.
Even more ducks will be in a row right about the time voters decide whether to make WA Cares and its payroll tax optional with Initiative 2124, which means millions of dollars of work on and marketing for WA Cares could be for naught. Without enough people wanting to remain in WA Cares and assessed a payroll tax for a benefit they might never receive, the program could and should be dismissed. A contingency planning workgroup has a meeting scheduled in November, in case it is needed.
WA Cares is a social program created by lawmakers to help with their budget needs and to place taxpayers on the hook for even more caregivers in the state. Washington state workers are, as of right now, taxed for the program mandatorily. Workers pay 58 cents of every $100 they earn to the WA Cares Fund. The state brought in more than $1.3 billion in the first year of the fund’s tax collection.
Benefits from the program could pay for long-term-care needs that some workers will eventually have. Not all will, and various hurdles stand in the way of qualifying for benefits and recouping any money contributed, ensuring not all workers will qualify for a return on their forced investment. (Reminder, there are no beneficiaries of this program until 2026, when a small portion of workers could gain eligibility. Most workers will need to pay 10 years of taxes without a break of five or more before becoming eligible.)
WA Cares is not a safety-net program. A safety net for people in financial need exists in Medicaid. Instead, WA Cares takes wages from all workers, including low-income ones, to create a pool of money that some workers, regardless of their income, can eventually use for long-term-care services and caregivers with state approval.
“State approval” was in focus at Wednesday’s meeting.
The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) will be required to register providers of long-term care for WA Cares, and those providers need to meet minimum qualifications. The LTSS Trust Commission gave recommendations about those minimum qualifications to DSHS so the agency can start rulemaking.
Qualifications are greater for caregivers who aren’t relatives of WA Cares’ beneficiaries. In the case of family in-home caregivers, the recommended qualifications would require being 18 or older, having state-approved training and passing a DSHS background check. (Training will likely be done through SEIU 775 Benefits Group. The caregivers’ union is also one of WA Cares biggest supporters.)
The commission also looked at recommendations for maximum payments for providers and services. The lifetime benefit of $36,500 attached to the program is independent of any provider-payment costs and remains.
An assisted living facility can run as high as $540 a day, commissioners were told. The cost of in-home personal care was estimated between $35 and $45 an hour. A beneficiary could run out of the $36,500 in less than three months given the type of care and services that are needed. That is why many are calling this a short-term-care program. People will, of course, be able to use their own money for services outside of the maximums or the lifetime benefit.
My takeaway from the recent meeting is that lawmakers not only determined who qualifies for WA Cares, picking winners and losers regardless of need, the state will now determine what kind of care, services and providers are going to be eligible for payment with WA Cares dollars.
Lawmakers should repeal the law that created WA Cares immediately, allowing workers to keep more of their wages and make individual long-term-care plans that work for them and their families. If a worker doesn’t end up needing long-term care, even better. He or she will be able to use their wages for other important life needs.
If voters say “yes” to I-2124, the Legislature might feel forced to rid the state of WA Cares. Solvency concerns already exist with the program. They will worsen if more people leave this misguided program with a false promise.
The next LTSS meeting is Oct. 30.
Elizabeth New (Hovde) is a policy analyst and the director of the Centers for Health Care and Worker Rights at the Washington Policy Center. She is a Clark County resident.
Also read:
- Opinion: Is government greed fueling the drive to defeat citizen-led ballot initiatives?
Paul Guppy of the Washington Policy Center discusses how government greed may be fueling opposition to citizen-led ballot initiatives aimed at reducing new taxes in Washington state. - Opinion: WA Cares commission weighs in on how future recipients will be allowed to spend moneyElizabeth New (Hovde) from the Washington Policy Center discusses the ongoing challenges with WA Cares, highlighting solvency concerns and the impact of Initiative 2124 on the program’s future.
- POLL: If Tri-Mountain Golf Course were sold, how would you feel about it being developed into something else?Poll: How do you feel about the potential sale and development of Tri-Mountain Golf Course? Share your thoughts on this community issue!
- Opinion: Fact check – Will repealing Washington’s CO2 tax harm ‘roads and bridges?’Todd Myers of the Washington Policy Center says legislators and activists understand that residents want to improve the safety and efficiency of our transportation system Todd MyersWashington Policy Center One of the primary arguments made by supporters of Washington’s tax on CO2 emissions, called the Climate Commitment Act (CCA), is that if the state loses …
- Opinion: Turn signals in parking lotsDoug Dahl of Target Zero answers whether turn signals are required in parking lots, explaining their importance for safety and courtesy.
