When Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson launched the WA Cares long-term care program on June 30, he highlighted 87-year-old Evelyn Wade receiving care from her niece, Sonja Thomas, calling it "what this program is all about." But Thomas had been providing that care for a "couple of years," according to a report published by the Washington Policy Center. The benefits didn't become available until July 1, meaning WA Cares hadn't funded or delivered a single day of Wade's care. The report argues the state borrowed an existing caregiving relationship to promote a benefit that played no role in creating it.
The state is facing significant challenges explaining who's actually eligible for the program. At a June 24 meeting of the Long-Term Services and Supports Trust Commission, officials reported that roughly 50% of early applicants were being denied, with many failing to meet contribution requirements. Commissioners flagged the need for clearer eligibility information as an action item. To qualify, workers must navigate two central gates: a contribution history requirement that can be satisfied through three different routes, and a functional need requirement demanding assistance with at least three activities of daily living for at least 90 days. Workers can gain full access after 10 qualifying contribution years, or qualify sooner by working at least 500 hours and paying premiums in three of the six years immediately before applying. People born before January 1, 1968, can receive 10% of the maximum benefit for each qualifying contribution year, starting with just one year.
The report notes that nothing presented at the launch established whether Wade met either eligibility requirement. The governor's office and the Department of Social and Health Services didn't respond to questions about Wade's contribution or eligibility status. According to the Washington Policy Center analysis, the caregiving arrangement appears more consistent with Washington's existing Medicaid long-term-care system, which can pay a qualifying person's relative to provide authorized in-home care. The report argues the state should explain why it used Wade's existing care arrangement to showcase WA Cares without clarifying that the program had neither provided nor paid for that care.
The distinction matters because Medicaid is a means-tested safety net for people meeting financial and functional eligibility standards, while WA Cares is available to qualifying workers regardless of income or assets. The report emphasizes that lower-income workers are required to pay payroll taxes that will help finance benefits available to people with considerably greater financial resources. While Ferguson and other speakers never expressly said Wade had received WA Cares benefits, the staging encouraged that conclusion, the report finds. Washington already had a means-tested long-term-care safety net—what WA Cares added was a payroll tax and a benefit untethered to financial need.