"Out of the gate, the proponents of the mandatory long-term care plan for Washington employees seemed more fixated on being the first state in the nation to create such a plan than on implementing sound policy, assessing whether it was needed or residents even wanted it," The Seattle Times editorial board wrote in an editorial published today. It added, "Aside from being a mandate that the majority of the people of Washington didn’t ask for, the plan, known as WA Cares, had other problems." 

Indeed. There are so many problems with WA Cares that the long-term-care law creating the program has been amended in several different ways since 2019, and a state commission overseeing the newish social program has a list of recommendations for additional changes.

Some of those recommendations have found a home in Senate Bill 6072 and House Bill 2467. Whether or not the proposed bills are adopted this legislative session might depend on whether they are seen as offering ballot alternatives to Initiative 2124, which has been certified and could allow voters to make the program and its payroll tax optional for workers. The initiative could also tank the misguided, state-imposed program that promises workers a benefit that many won’t need or qualify for — even if they do need long-term-care services someday.

So-called “fixes” that have been made to WA Cares — and ones that are still recommended — can’t do the trick and make this program sing. WA Cares is flawed at its core. 

The program can’t deliver on what it promises. It also has solvency concerns. It was really created to cost-shift Medicaid expenses, not give all Washingtonians money for long-term care. It was also created to be a jobs program more than a way to solve the long-term-care crisis in a graying population. Still, that hasn’t stopped the state from marketing WA Cares as something that should give people “peace of mind” about their future. The marketing has likely been able to gather some program support.  

Since July, Washington’s W2 workers, including part-time and low-income workers, have been paying 58 cents on every $100 of their earnings. Even workers who live outside of the state, some people on non-immigrant work visas and some others who aren’t expected to ever benefit from the program from its outset have been expected to pay the significant payroll tax. (They were allowed to seek voluntary exemptions from WA Cares, if they knew about that ability.)

In some cases, workers’ earnings will be going to fund long-term-care services used by people with ample resources to pay for long-term-care needs should they have them. 

That’s important. Research shows that financing long-term care is more manageable than the state suggests with WA Cares. Many older adults are able to finance a substantial amount of paid home care — the kind of care that WA Cares says its benefits are primarily for — out of pocket. And most people don’t consume their life savings paying for long-term care. 

Government is contributing to, not helping, our nation’s long-term care problem by offering Medicaid money for long-term care to people who only appear to need taxpayer help after transferring funds and assets so they can qualify for government dollars. Instead of creating a safety net for people who are not in need, which is what this first-in-the-nation Washington state program has done — and poorly at that — lawmakers should be making people aware of the cost related to long-term care. They also should be reforming and strengthening the safety net that already exists for people in true need. The state Legislature should eliminate the ability for people to access public funds for long-term care while preserving wealth. 

The Seattle Times is right. Democrats should be holding public hearings on I-2124 and its merits, at the least. The board writes, “Hearings would give the public a chance to hear the pros and cons of a plan that affects their wallets” and possible health care needs. 

Better yet, lawmakers could dig up and pass House Bill 1011, a bill that was filed in 2023 and that would repeal the long-term-care law that should have never been. That's a ballot alternative that makes sense. Lawmakers could right their wrong, rather than rely on voters to do the work.