This Washington
No Need to Rewrite Health Care Initiative Statement
The state Office of Financial Management ruled today that Cindi Laws, head of the "No on I-1163" campaign, was in error when she claimed the fiscal note attached to the initiative understated how much it would cost. (Initiative 1163 would accelerate the implementation of new training and certification requirements for home health care workers by two years; this year, the state legislature voted to delay implementing an earlier voter-approved initiative, I-1029, until 2014, citing costs).
Some background: Laws claimed, in a letter to OFM, that the real cost of the initiative, which is being funded by the home health care workers' union, SEIU, would be more than $80 million. She got that number by adding the $31 million---total---I-1163 would cost to implement over six years (more on that in a minute), plus the $51 million I-1029 is expected to cost. (She also says the state should include the cost of implementing Chapter 361 of the Laws of 2007, an obscure rule change that expanded the training available to home health care workers, in the cost of I-1163).
"The 1163 impact statement uses technical and legal language and fails to place the estimated dollar amounts in context," Laws wrote. "As a result, it is incomplete and misleading.”
But here's the thing: I-1029 is a separate initiative from I-1163, which merely accelerates 1029's implementation by two years; so only the cost of the six years affected by the initiative should be included in its cost. And of that $31 million, about $18 million would be offset by federal revenue, so the true cost is more like $13 million.
In a letter rejecting Laws' request, OFM director Marty Brown wrote, "I respectfully disagree with your suggestion that the inclusion of costs associated with implementing existing law would better inform voters about the fiscal impact of Initiative 1163. ... Because I believe the statement complies with the statutory requirements, it will not be withdrawn."
Some background: Laws claimed, in a letter to OFM, that the real cost of the initiative, which is being funded by the home health care workers' union, SEIU, would be more than $80 million. She got that number by adding the $31 million---total---I-1163 would cost to implement over six years (more on that in a minute), plus the $51 million I-1029 is expected to cost. (She also says the state should include the cost of implementing Chapter 361 of the Laws of 2007, an obscure rule change that expanded the training available to home health care workers, in the cost of I-1163).
"The 1163 impact statement uses technical and legal language and fails to place the estimated dollar amounts in context," Laws wrote. "As a result, it is incomplete and misleading.”
But here's the thing: I-1029 is a separate initiative from I-1163, which merely accelerates 1029's implementation by two years; so only the cost of the six years affected by the initiative should be included in its cost. And of that $31 million, about $18 million would be offset by federal revenue, so the true cost is more like $13 million.
In a letter rejecting Laws' request, OFM director Marty Brown wrote, "I respectfully disagree with your suggestion that the inclusion of costs associated with implementing existing law would better inform voters about the fiscal impact of Initiative 1163. ... Because I believe the statement complies with the statutory requirements, it will not be withdrawn."
