Contact: Jason Mercier, Budget
Research Analyst
(360) 956-3482
Accountability in action Health Care Authority drops close to 20,000 from Basic Health
Plan
Taxpayers benefit when state agencies are held accountable. This is a
success story.
Remember when the state auditor revealed last year that 37,000 individuals
receiving benefits on the state's Basic Health Plan had not provided proof
of eligibility? The agency overseeing the program, the Health Care Authority
(HCA), couldn't say how much it had overpaid to ineligible individuals,
and nothing was being done to stop the problem or restore money wrongly
distributed.
That has changed. Legislators responded to the state auditor's findings
by including a few requirements for HCA in last year's supplemental budget:
All Basic Health applicants must submit tax returns and recent
pay history
Employment Security Division (ESD) payroll records must be checked
annually
Enrollees with discrepancies in their ESD records must document
income
Enrollees with no ESD records must document their income twice
each year
HCA must pursue repayment and civil penalties
These requirements resulted in HCA re-screening 63,000 individuals on the
Basic Health Plan last year, with nearly 20,000 being taken out of the program
when eligibility could not be verified. 17,000 did not respond to requests
for verification, 1,200 were dropped because their income was too high,
and 1,400 dropped out voluntarily rather than provide documentation.
Accounts with documented overpayments are also being pursued and these
efforts should be aggressive until the state has collected all repayments.
We commend the legislature and HCA for taking these important steps to
remedy the problems identified by the state auditor and restore the trust
of taxpayers.
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"