Elizabeth Hovde of the Washington Policy Center explains how our state legislature should get on board with helping people age in place by providing good information
Elizabeth Hovde
Washington Policy Center
There wasn’t much notice for August’s webinar hosted by the WA Cares Fund. It was titled, “Long-Term Care Planning for Near-Retirees.” I finally went back for a watch.
In addition to presentations from government employees about changes that were made for near-retirees in the last legislative session when it comes to WA Cares — the new social program supporters and public agency heads are trying to pass off as an insurance policy for workers, even calling a new payroll tax a “premium” — there also were helpful presentations from the Area Agencies on Aging (AAA) and The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP).
Spokespersons gave information about where people can go for help that is often needed as people age. Many companies offer financial planning tools, one representative said. Home design that makes sense for aging and preventing falls was highlighted, as were advance directives and discussions about eventual care with family members and faith-based groups. I thought, “Yes. This is an appropriate role for government!”
Lawmakers would be wise to use their bully pulpits to help people become aware that long-term care is a life need many of us will have in our increasingly graying population. They could point to planning information and already available resources so people don’t become dependent on the state in retirement years. That’s not attractive. Being dependent on the government means you’re in a very low-income situation and often receive subpar health care, as decisions are often made on a government-centric path not a patient-centered one.
Instead of an information campaign that encourages self-sufficiency and planning for those who still can before they’re faced with expensive long-term-care needs, the Democrat-led Legislature decided to require every W-2 worker to pay a new tax for something they might not ever need or get, while erroneously telling them they can count on the social program. (They can’t.) And many workers need as much of their earned income to help with the needs of today, especially in a time when inflation and taxpayer-spending hits keep coming. Legislators should repeal this long-term-care law next legislative session.
An information campaign — one that could point to private long-term-care insurance (LTCI) for workers who LTCI makes sense for — should be coupled with removing taxes on insurance products and better protecting Medicaid. That’d be a better route for the state when it comes to looking out for Medicaid’s LTC spending woes. Cost-shifting to workers saves the state relatively little and costs workers a lot. Creating a new entitlement program for people in need and people not in need isn’t wise. See my policy analysis of the law here.
WA Cares supporters, including some lawmakers, continue to misrepresent LTCI plans sold in the private market. It happened again in this webinar. WA Cares Director Ben Veghte insisted comparable plans offered before government intervention were not affordable for workers. I disagree. LTCI was not sought by many workers, maybe because of a lack of knowledge about possible LTC needs and often because people save for life needs in different ways. But not being able to afford a policy and not choosing to purchase a policy are two totally different things. Veghte also said it was easier to qualify for the WA Cares benefit if you do need long-term care. I’d disagree with that, too, from several angles. Vestment criteria and residency are going to keep a lot of people from the benefit they were told a payroll tax was earning them. WA Cares’ health qualifications are not yet final, but they’re also questionable.
Helping people age in place starts with good information. Our Legislature should get on board. Having more money when you retire, not less because of high payroll taxes over your working years, will also help Washington’s workers age in place.
Elizabeth Hovde is a policy analyst and director of the Centers for Health Care and Worker Rights at the Washington Policy Center. She is a Clark County resident.
Also read:
- Opinion: The income tax proposal has arrived
Ryan Frost of the Washington Policy Center argues that a proposed Washington income tax creates a new revenue stream rather than delivering tax reform or relief. - Opinion: ‘If they want light rail, they should be the ones who pay for it’
Clark County Today Editor Ken Vance argues that supporters of light rail tied to the I-5 Bridge replacement should bear the local cost of operating and maintaining the system through a narrowly drawn sub-district. - POLL: If a sub-district is created, what area should it include?
Clark County residents are asked where a potential C-TRAN sub-district should be drawn if voters are asked to fund light rail operations and maintenance costs. - Opinion: IBR falsely blaming inflation
Joe Cortright argues that inflation explains only a small portion of the IBR project’s cost increases and that rising consultant and staff expenses are the primary drivers. - Letter: The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program’s $141 million bribe can be better spent on sandwich steel-concrete tubes
Bob Ortblad argues that an immersed tunnel using sandwich steel-concrete tubes would be a more cost-effective alternative to the current Interstate Bridge Replacement Program design.
