Committee hears testimony supporting transparency for workers’ compensation rate-setting

Labor and Workplace Standards Committee · February 20, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Stakeholders told the Labor and Workplace Standards Committee that Senate Bill 61 36 would require the Department of Labor and Industries to publish actuarially indicated workers’ compensation base rates and disclose when the department limits increases, helping employers and policymakers understand rate trade-offs.

The Labor and Workplace Standards Committee heard bipartisan support Feb. 20 for Senate Bill 61 36, which would require the Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) to publish the actuarially indicated premium rate for each workers’ compensation risk class and to disclose when the department caps increases below those levels.

Kelly Leonard, staff to the committee, told members the bill would require L&I to publish the actuarial indicated rate, identify classifications where the department limits increases, state what the rate would have been without that limitation, and show how limiting increases affects premium rates in other classes. "Rates are set using actuarial principles and must be designed to limit fluctuations and encourage accident prevention," Leonard said during the staff briefing.

Industry groups—represented by Andrea Ray of the Washington Hospitality Association, Mike Ennis of the Building Industry Association of Washington, Jerry Vanderwood of the Associated General Contractors, and Chris Tefft of the Washington Self Insurers Association—urged passage as a transparency measure. Ray said greater visibility “helps employers plan responsibly, invest in workplace safety, and strengthen their partnership with the department.”

Supporters said the disclosure would help employers, particularly small businesses, understand reserve use and whether their premiums reflect their own risk or are subsidizing other classes. Tefft noted interest in details about rate-capped classes and the impacts of recent expansions in presumptive PTSD claims on specific rate classes.

No formal amendments or final action on SB 61 36 occurred during the public hearing; the committee closed the public testimony and later handled several bills in executive session. The bill was presented to the committee with testimony from both staff and multiple industry panels.