Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Apple Health Employer Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to assess large employers for Apple Health draws broad support and strong business opposition
Summary
SB 6,173 proposes a quarterly Apple Health employer assessment on large employers to raise revenue for the healthcare affordability account. Supporters say it protects Medicaid access amid federal changes; business groups argue it creates administrative burdens, legal risk and could hurt hiring and small employers.
Senate Bill 6,173, discussed Jan. 20, 2026 in the Senate Ways and Means Committee, would impose an Apple Health employer assessment on employers with 100 or more Washington employees (excluding state and local governments). The assessment equals an employer’s total member months for Apple Health enrollees in the preceding year multiplied by the Medicaid expansion capitation amount certified by the Healthcare Authority. Collected revenue would be deposited into the state healthcare affordability account and spent only after appropriation.
Committee staff described the bill as a response to federal changes (HR1) that would impose community engagement requirements and are expected to reduce Medicaid enrollment nationally; staff estimated revenue in the back-of-envelope range of $700–$900 million per year and said Employment Security Department (ESD) and Healthcare Authority data would be used to calculate assessments, with RDA (DSHS) compiling client-month data.
Supporters — including Northwest Health Advocates, SEIU caregivers, Economic Opportunity Institute, the Washington State Labor Council and patient groups — urged the committee to pass SB 6,173 to stabilize Apple Health financing and prevent coverage loss for vulnerable residents. Emily Bryce and Carissa Larson said the assessment is a precedent-backed approach (noting Massachusetts) to ask large employers that benefit from the state coverage system to share responsibility for the safety net.
Business and industry witnesses — the Washington Food Industry Association, Washington Retail Association, Washington Hospitality Association, Association of Washington Business and others — opposed the measure. They argued the fee penalizes employers for employees’ voluntary enrollment in Medicaid, imposes heavy administrative burdens, could run afoul of ERISA and incentivize employers to cut part-time roles or avoid hiring people who use Medicaid, including workers with disabilities. Grocery and hospitality representatives warned the formula could harm small and mid-size businesses and questioned the HCA data and methodology.
Committee staff clarified implementation details: the assessment would rely on ESD employment data, Healthcare Authority-certified capitation amounts, and DSHS/RDA client-month data; staff also confirmed the assessment equals the full capitation amount (state and federal share). The committee heard competing policy and legal arguments but did not vote. Stakeholders asked for technical fixes and exemptions for employers that offer qualifying coverage or for internship/hospital training roles.
Next steps depend on drafting clarifications, technical amendments, and responses to employer legal concerns raised during testimony.
