Citizen Portal
Sign In

Committee hears support and concerns for PFML actuarial rate-setting bill

Labor and Workplace Standards Committee · February 24, 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

Second Substitute SSB 5292 would shift paid family and medical leave premium-setting from a statutory 'lookback' to an actuarial, forward-looking method and require a 4-month reserve by 2030 while retaining a 1.2% cap; labor, business, and policy groups testified both for the change and voiced concerns about reserve-related rate pressure.

Committee staff briefed members on second substitute Senate Bill 5292, which would remove the statutory lookback formula for the state-paid family and medical leave (PFML) program and instead require the Employment Security Department (ESD) to set the total premium annually based on an Office of Actuarial Services report. The bill retains the statutory premium cap of 1.2% and includes a requirement to establish a four-month reserve in the PFML account by the end of the 2030 rate collection year.

Maggie Humphreys of MomsRising (labor advisory side), Jan Heimbaugh of the Building Industry Association of Washington (employer advisory side), and James Crandall of the Association of Washington Businesses each testified in support, arguing actuarial rate-setting would allow the department to account for demographic and economic trends and produce rates aligned with long-term solvency. Humphreys noted the original negotiation over the statute carefully defined the formula but argued the program’s maturation makes an actuarial approach appropriate.

Elizabeth Neu of the Washington Policy Center said she supports the rate-setting change but objected to the new four-month reserve requirement, arguing it could force higher rates under the 1.2% cap and urged benefit reductions instead of rate increases. Neu also cited ESD usage statistics she said show higher-income earners use PFML more frequently than lower-wage workers. Committee members asked clarifying questions; no final vote on the bill occurred at this meeting.