Eleven ways the WA Observer misreported on I-2124
We reached out the publishers of the WA Observer last week to point out the many ways (11 that we counted) their recent article misreported on I-2124. We haven’t heard back from them. Here’s our email:
With the possible exception of the headline, yesterday’s reporting on the initiative to end Washington’s long term care program missed factual, accurate information and context to help your readers understand this complex issue. It appears to be an opinion piece to sway the reader, not to inform them of the impacts of I-2124 on millions of Washingtonians.
While your authors may quibble with how Washington’s long-term care program needs to be tweaked and strengthened, the truth is I-2124 will end the program in its entirety, leaving millions with no options and this important point is lost in your coverage.
INACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF THE COST OF CARE: “regular visits from a paid caregiver can set families back more than $5,000 a month.
IN FACT: The cost of care varies depending on the needs of the recipient. An Individual Care Provider’s average rate is $33.92 per hour. Washington’s program will pay for 1,000 or more hours of a caregiver. It buys time for you and your family, before you must drain your savings and even sign over your home to qualify for taxpayer-funded Medicaid. Less than 25% of long-term care recipients will need care for more than two years.
2. MISCHARACTERIZING/OMISSION OF CONTEXT: “As it exists now, WA Cares caps its lifetime payouts at $36,500—small enough that many recipients will have to pick up the rest of the tab.”
IN FACT: Particularly when the next sentence references the increasing cost of care, it is misleading at best to describe this as a cap at $36,500 without noting that it increases with inflation. With the predicted 2.5% annual adjustment, the benefit will be nearly $60,000 in 20 years. Characterizing the benefit as small and leaving recipients to pick up the “rest of the tab” omits the alternative: without this benefit, people will have to pay for all of their care out of pocket.
3. STRANGE/NEGATIVE CHARACTERIZATIONS: “The strings attached to that money are many” places a negative bias in describing the way the program works, the structure any benefit program needs to protect it’s integrity. The vast majority of people are going to work 10 years during their lifetime without a five year break. Eliminating the five year break is a likely legislative change (SB 6072), but also impacts very few people.
4. NEGATIVE CHARACTERIZATION: “People intent on “cashing” the benefits” is a very strange way of describing someone who is debilitated by a disease, injury, illness or age and needs help with daily living tasks and need to pay for help, equipment or services so they can continue to live with safety and dignity. It’s not a lottery ticket, it’s a benefit people earn over time like Social Security and Medicare.
5. FACTUALLY INCORRECT: “If you retire out of state after 2026, consider those benefits forfeit unless you worked full-time and contributed to the program for three years prior.
IN FACT: While you do have to work at least three years in Washington before you can take your benefit with you, it does not have to be full time. As long as you are working an average of 10 hours per week for three years, you can continue building your benefit after you move out of state.
6. NEGATIVE CHARACTERIZATION: Out-of-state beneficiaries will also have to check off a running list of circumstances to collect those benefits, such as needing a chaperone to eat, bathe, dress, or visit the john for 90 days.”
IN FACT: The threshold WA Cares uses out of state is the HIPAA threshold used by virtually all private LTCI. WA Cares uses it out of state for two reasons: 1) The professionals who do assessments of long-term care need outside Washington are accustomed to using this threshold and it would be expensive to retrain assessors in all 49 other states to use a different tool than that to which they are accustomed; 2) The LTSS Trust Commission has recommended to the legislature the statutory framework for a Supplemental Private Long-Term Care Insurance market. Insurance companies interested in entering this market required (see linked Commission report above, pp. 23-25) that their threshold be used out of state.
7. NEGATIVE BIAS AND UNFACTUAL: “Democratic state lawmakers have harped on the statistic that seven out of 10 Washingtonians will need long-term care in their lifetime, but how many will need WA Cares in their sunset years is another story. Close to seven out of 10 Washingtonians also own their own home and often have savings to cover all but the longest stints at an assisted living home… An affluent family pulling down $200K a year would pay $1,160 per year for something they’ll likely never need.”
IN FACT: 70% of Americans will need long term care is a widely documented statistic, not partisan rhetoric. To some people’s surprise, 40% of people who need help with daily living activities due to a serious injury, illness, or debilitating disease are under 65. I-2124 will take away resources the vast majority of Washingtonians will be able to use, whether they are homeowners or not.
Just like the rest of Americans, the typical Washingtonian likely has $1,200 in savings to cover an emergency. And only about 3% of people have private long-term care insurance because they can’t afford the expensive premiums - on average $2,000 to more than $8,000 a year, depending on the policy for a 55 year old couple, with premiums due even after retirement. For profit insurance companies routinely deny claims and increase premiums by 50, 100 or even 300%, according to an analysis of consumer complaints filed with the Office of Insurance Commissioner. Those who can afford it could be denied a policy because of a pre-existing condition (about half of us).
Most importantly, only the very wealthy have enough savings to pay for long-term care out of their own pockets. A 2024 survey revealed that 27% of Americans have no emergency savings at all. 40% reported that they would need to borrow money - from credit cards, loans, or family and friends - if faced with an unexpected expense greater than $1000. Fewer than 3 in 10 adults aged 50-64 say they have money set aside for long-term care needs, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. I-2124 will take away $36,500 (or $60,000 in 2056) that will go a long way for most Washingtonians
An estimated 1 in 4 workers may have to leave their jobs or cut hours to care for spouses, inlaws, or parents with serious health conditions. Besides exacerbating our labor shortage that hurts business, those who are forced to leave jobs to become caregivers lose not only their income and career opportunities, they lose the ability to save for their own needs.
9. NEGATIVE BIAS: “Then there’s the cost for people paying the program’s payroll tax. At 0.58% of gross wages, or $0.58 per $100, that rounds out to $144 for a family of three at the federal poverty line making $25,820 a year. That’s a tank of gas or a week’s worth of groceries for plenty of people.
IN FACT: It is low and middle income workers who will benefit most from Washington’s long term care benefit program. A person making the state’s median income of $5,271/month will pay $30/month towards their benefits that are worth an estimated $60,000 in 20 years. If I-2124 is approved, middle income families will be thrown back between a rock and a hard place, where only the very wealthy or the very poor can access long term care support. With I-2124, the vast majority of low and middle income families will have no choice but to:
drain family savings to qualify for taxpayer-funded medicaid
pay expensive premiums for private long term care insurance
force family members to leave jobs to care for us
leave our jobs to care for family members
10. FALSE CONTEXT/EDITORIAL COMMENTARY: “That’s not to say WA Cares wouldn’t help the 455,000 uninsured Washingtonians living in the state or folks without the assets to cover long-term care. The law was written specifically for them.”
IN FACT: I-2124 will take benefits away from 3.9 million workers in Washington who are enrolled in WA Cares. Health insurance and Medicare will not cover long-term care needs. Uninsured or not, the vast majority of Washingtonians do not have the income or savings to cover long term care expenses, and cannot afford or qualify for expensive private long term care insurance.
11. MISSING FACTS: Other than mentioning SEIU’s support for the No on I-2124 campaign, you [WA Observer] neglected to report that I-2124 is opposed by major organizations advocating for public health, patients, retirees, women and working families including the Washington State Nurses Association, AARP, the League of Women Voters, MomsRising, the MS Society, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, ALS Association, Planned Parenthood and 140 other organizations representing more than 3 million Washingtonians. The only people who stand to benefit from this initiative are the very wealthy and insurance companies.
Those who support Washington’s long term care program and oppose this initiative are the very people who best understand long term care and its challenges: businesses (Washington Health Care Association, Leading Age, home care agencies) , family caregivers, and advocates for patients and people with chronic debilitating diseases.
A large coalition of organizations and individuals who advocate for aging and disabled people, patients, caregivers, and working families have supported the development and implementation of Washington’s long term care benefit program for more than a decade.
LASTLY: We strongly urge you to contact experts on long term care financing for future stories on this subject, and to talk to stakeholders who can explain the impact taking Washington’s long term care benefits away will have.
