Not only will some workers not qualify for the money they’re being told should give them peace of mind about possible long-term-care needs, Washingtonians who do qualify for a WA Cares benefit won’t be able to fully choose how the money gets spent
Elizabeth New (Hovde)
Washington Policy Center
The May 1 meeting of a WA Cares oversight commission should be must-see-TV, as it made one thing super clear: There is going to be a lot of disappointment if WA Cares remains a mandatory program funded by 58 cents (or more) of every $100 a worker earns.
Not only will some workers not qualify for the money they’re being told should give them peace of mind about possible long-term-care needs, Washingtonians who do qualify for a WA Cares benefit won’t be able to fully choose how the money gets spent. There is the law that created WA Cares to contend with, a state agency making rules about minimum caregiver qualifications and provider payment maximums, and there’s a union lobbying to have some control of the caregivers paid with WA Cares dollars, including thousands of family caregivers.
The concern about what will be required of a family caregiver to get paid by the state on behalf of a WA Cares beneficiary — training, payments, union affiliation — is what much of the meeting focused on, in addition to the contingency planning needed in case voters pass Initiative 2124 in November. (That initiative would make participation in WA Cares optional instead of mandatory. State agencies and commission members think it might pass. As such, the commission, the Employment Security Department and the Office of the State Actuary are all in contingency-planning mode.)
Required training for family caregivers
At last week’s WA Cares webinar, I asked whether the training family caregivers are required by law to take before receiving any WA Cares dollars would cost them. How much training will be required of someone who has been caring for mom or dad for years?
The webinar hosts were unsure, as the rules for caregivers are currently being discussed and written. Earlier this year, I reported the state decided to require training through Consumer Direct Care Network, which partners with SEIU 775 Benefits Group.
Sen. Curtis King, R-Yakima, was one of several people Wednesday expressing concern that a beneficiary won’t just get money to pay a caregiver of their choosing. He finds it “inconceivable” to make family caregivers go through a union or sign up with an agency to bring meds to mom.
An SEIU representative on the commission is on a smaller workgroup that is working out the fine print. The workgroup would report back. Others on Wednesday seemed to think a larger group conversation was in order.
Stay tuned. While some commission members argued we have years to figure out the caregiver details, I think people being asked to make decisions about WA Cares in November would like those details sooner than later.
Elizabeth New (Hovde) is a policy analyst and director of the Centers for Health Care and Worker Rights. She is a Clark County resident.
Also read:
- Opinion: ‘Seeking might over right destroys representative government’
Retired judge Dave Larson argues that prioritizing political power over constitutional principles has undermined representative government and calls for renewed civic responsibility. - Letter: ‘Immigration’ resolution scheduled for this Wednesday at Clark County Council Meeting
Rob Anderson urges residents to closely watch an upcoming Clark County Council meeting where an immigration-related resolution and proposed rule changes are expected to be discussed. - Opinion: The 1700-square-foot solution to Washington’s housing crisis
An opinion column arguing that Washington’s energy code has driven up housing costs and outlining how HB 2486 aims to limit those impacts for smaller, more affordable homes. - Letter: Public school vision
Clark County resident Larry Roe urges a deeper community discussion about public school priorities, levy funding, and the long-term affordability of education for local families. - Opinion: House Bill 1834 would create a regulatory nightmare and restricts parental control on social media
Mark Harmsworth argues that House Bill 1834 would undermine parental authority and create sweeping regulatory and legal risks under the guise of protecting minors online.
