The state's Health Services Account (HSA) was created in 1993, and is
now the state's second largest account. During the last decade, state health
care expenditures have increased eight-fold and the HSA has grown twenty
times faster than the general fund.
The HSA receives funds from alcohol and cigarette taxes, taxes on HMO premiums,
tobacco settlement funds, and federal ProShare funds. These funds are used
to run the state's Basic Health Plan ($530 million), which has 140,000 enrollees,
and the Medicaid for Kids program ($490 million), which has 350,000 enrollees.
Unfortunately, the HSA is facing a $570 million deficit caused by three
major factors:
1. Legislators sold future tobacco revenues to patch a budget hole in
2002, which resulted in a $125 million loss in tobacco revenue.
2. Legislators assumed when they created their budget that the state
would receive $300 million more than it actually will in federal ProShare
funds. (At the time, EFF pointed out this was an extremely optimistic
and unlikely forecast.)
3. Health care inflation is growing 50 percent faster than the "sin
tax" revenues being collected to cover costs.
In an effort to address these funding shortfalls, Governor Locke has proposed
eliminating Basic Health Coverage for 60,000 childless adults, while increasing
community health grants by $23 million.
A better approach would be careful reconsideration of eligibility standards
for recipients of state health benefits. We recommend the state consider
the following actions:
1. Reduce eligible income from 250 percent of the federal poverty
level (FPL) to 175 percent of the FPL. This would reduce eligibility
for a family of four from annual income of $42,250 to $32,000. Washington
would still have the highest eligibility levels in the Northwest, but
the state would save $95 million each year.
2. Implement the state auditor's recommendation to start requiring
verification of eligibility for recipients of Children's Medicaid benefits.
This would save the state an estimated $35 million.
Prepared by Bob Williams, President
and Senior Research Analyst (360) 956-3482
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]?"