Latest news with #Washingtonians'
UPI
02-07-2025
- Health
- UPI
20 states challenge HHS' transfer of Medicaid data to DHS
July 2 (UPI) -- California and 19 other states have filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the Department of Health and Human Services permitting the Department of Homeland Security "unfettered access" to individual Medicaid health data, raising fears it could be used as part of President Donald Trump's mass deportation plans. According to the lawsuit, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the states are asking the court to declare HHS' transfer of Medicaid data to DHS, which oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was unauthorized and enjoin its use for the purposes of immigration enforcement. They are also seeking to prevent any further sharing of Medicaid data. "The Trump administration has upended longstanding privacy protections with its decision to illegally share sensitive, personal health data with ICE," California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. "In doing so, it has created a culture of fear that will lead to fewer people seeking vital emergency medical care." The lawsuit states that on June 13, the plaintiff states learned that HHS had transferred to DHS en mass Medicaid files from California, Illinois and Washington. The states said the data transferred was personally identifiable, not anonymized and included Medicaid beneficiaries' immigration status and addresses among other information. According to the lawsuit, HHS provided neither the states nor the Medicaid beneficiaries with warning or notice of the transfer and the department has not identified the legal authorities under which it shared the personal Medicaid data with DHS. HHS has said, the lawsuit states, that it gave the information to DHS "to ensure that Medicaid benefits are reserved for individuals who are lawfully entitled to receive them" but Congress has permitted coverage and federal fund for emergency Medicaid to all residents of the United States, including those without immigration status. Among the consequences of the sharing of this information is that it could lead to noncitizens disenrolling or refusing to enroll in emergency Medicaid, which they are eligible for, thereby denying them healthcare they may need. "The Trump administration's use of Washingtonians' private health information for its own political agenda is outrageous," Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson said in a statement. "This is a violation of trust for everyone whose data was inappropriately shared, but especially our immigrant communities and mixed-status families, who are already being targeted by the Trump administration.
Axios
16-06-2025
- Politics
- Axios
How Washington state's new gun permit law will work
Washington residents will need a permit to buy guns starting in 2027 — a change expected to affect thousands of potential buyers each year. Why it matters: Supporters say the law will boost public safety by helping keep guns out of the wrong hands. Opponents argue it infringes on Washingtonians' constitutional gun rights. State of play: Washington is the 13th U.S. state to approve a permit-to-purchase system for firearms, according to the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions. Gov. Bob Ferguson signed the legislation into law in May. What's inside: The new law will require people to get fingerprinted and complete a gun safety course with live-fire training before they can get a permit to buy a firearm. They will also have to submit a fee and application to the Washington State Patrol. Exceptions to the training requirement will be made for police officers and military members, as well as licensed private investigators and security guards who carry firearms. Once granted, a permit will be good for five years. What they're saying: Studies have found that states with similar gun-licensing laws have lower rates of gun violence, the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions says. In particular, requiring people to get their fingerprints taken as part of the permitting process can cut down on "straw purchases," in which one person buys a firearm for someone else who can't legally own one, Renée Hopkins, CEO of the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, told Axios. Hopkins said the training requirements also promote safer gun handling, reducing the risks involved in having a gun at home. By the numbers: The State Patrol expects to receive about 200,000 permit applications the first year the law is fully implemented, and roughly 100,000 yearly after that. The other side: " This is the state government telling gun owners, you've got to get our permission to exercise your civil right — and that's not going to pass the smell test" in the courts, Dave Workman, editor-in-chief of TheGunMag, a publication of the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation, told Axios. The fine print: Under the law, starting May 1, 2027, gun dealers in Washington won't be able to sell a firearm to someone unless the buyer has a valid purchasing permit. The State Patrol will certify which firearms courses meet the training requirements. (They must involve firing at least 50 rounds of ammunition.) Once the training has been completed, the State Patrol must approve applications unless the person is restricted from owning a firearm for another reason, like having an outstanding arrest warrant or being subject to a no-contact order. Permits will be revoked if a person later becomes prohibited from owning a firearm, such as through a new criminal conviction or a court order.
Axios
10-06-2025
- Business
- Axios
Divorcing in Trump's Washington? Good luck
When Washington couples split up today, they're facing a super volatile party in the courtroom. No, not their ex — it's President Trump's policies. The big picture: Divorce is already stressful. But add federal layoffs, a saturated job market, an uncertain real estate landscape and a possible recession? Buckle up, divorce lawyers tell Axios. Zoom in: Trump's fast-paced decision making is particularly impacting Washingtonians' finances — and money is a big sticking point for couples who are splitting. "When the income takes a dip, how do you calculate alimony? How do you calculate child support? How long is the decrease in income going to last? Nobody knows," says lawyer Jessica Markham, whose client list includes many former and current federal employees. "When the economy is not doing well, you have less options on how to problem-solve untangling two people's financial lives." What they're saying: Some of Markham's clients who've been fired from the federal government, forced to retire early, or are scared of layoffs are now requesting short- or long-term alimony from their exes — something she says wouldn't have happened a year ago. "It's such a new dynamic to their relationship," she says. "They were previously in a very secure position, and in those cases, it's harder to settle, because it's so shocking." Other wannabe-divorcés are delaying the process because they want more security about their employment status before they put themselves on the hook for something they can't afford. Housing is another issue. Some divorcing feds are worried about buying a new single-person pad because they're unsure of their future. One of Markham's federal clients initially had trouble getting a mortgage because the lender was worried they wouldn't be a safe borrower — their agency employer was doing layoffs, Markham says. Others are holding onto homes to see if Washington's real estate market dips, making it cheaper to buy their former spouse out, says lawyer Maria Simon. Also a problem: Child care. Now that feds are back in the office full time, some are asking the ex for help with day care or a nanny and getting pushback, says Simon. "[The partner is saying,] 'Well you never needed it before. Why do I have to pay for it now?'" Zoom out: There's no tax bracket that isn't affected. Lawyer Cheryl New says her Washington power-player clients are worried about how Trump's policies are affecting the valuation of their assets, businesses and investments, and how that will affect their divorce settlements. "[They're thinking,] 'Am I going to be able to pay my employees? Am I going to be able to afford the four homes that I bought and the three kids in the private school?'" New says. The intrigue: New's client list includes some divorcing politicos in Trump's orbit, she tells Axios — who are equally freaked by the effects of his policies on their own breakups. "What you see in the press and what you see on television is not precisely what I'm seeing behind closed doors," she says. "[They're] just as worried, if not more, because there's some insider information there." New says she also represents lawyers who left their jobs at some of the white-collar law firms working pro bono with Trump — and who are now worried about how their lack of income will affect their divorce proceedings. What we're watching: Simon anticipates that custody battles will begin to feature former feds who have to leave the DMV to find work in a less saturated market — and want to take the kids with them, she says.
Yahoo
18-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
If the cost of food spikes, blame Washington Democrats
When Democratic lawmakers last December accidentally leaked their plans to increase taxes this legislative session, they said they needed to 'identify the villain' — a villain they assured Washingtonians was the ultrawealthy and some of 'the biggest, most profitable corporations on the planet.' Now that Democrats have passed their $9.4 billion tax increase — the largest in state history — it's clear who their villain is, but it's not the ultrawealthy or big business as advertised. After all the Democrats' talk about who needs to pay what they owe, it turns out they were talking about you. At a time when Washingtonians cite the unaffordability of housing, gas, child care, health care and groceries as their top concern in poll after poll, Democrats' new taxes will increase the cost of housing, fuel, child care, hospital care – and will add $100 million to the cost of Washingtonians' food. Making food more expensive is especially cruel: Essentials like food cannot be cut from household budgets. That's why, as representatives of local grocers and restaurant owners, we strongly urge Gov. Bob Ferguson to veto the Democrats' tax increase on food, which will be devastating to lower-income households. It represents an unfathomable abdication of concern for working families on the part of the governor's Democratic colleagues. How did this happen? Democrats said they intended to 'make our extremely bad, regressive tax system better than it is now,' using chart after chart to show how little Washington taxes wealthy individuals, broadcasting data from the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy. Yet when it came time to evaluate who would bear the burden of their tax proposals — those at the top or the bottom of the income scale — Democrats quickly turned a deaf ear to their friends at the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy. A recent post reminded Democrats not to 'settle for a more regressive revenue raiser,' warning that, with unwise choices, 'the state risks backsliding … and moving further away from a tax system designed with equity and sustainability in mind.' So what were Democrats' tax equity ideas? Achieving tax fairness by taxing wealth greater than $50 million? Democrats abandoned that idea. Achieving tax fairness by adding a payroll tax on income for employees at large companies who earn more than $176,100? They abandoned that idea, too. Both ideas were rejected after an intense lobbying campaign on the part of Washington's corporate leaders, including from Amazon, WaFd Bank, Weyerhaeuser and dozens more. Microsoft, leading the way, even pledged $1 million to defeat a payroll tax at the ballot. Democrats then said they could achieve tax fairness by raising the B&O tax on businesses large and small — including more than doubling the tax on business with revenues over $250 million per year. The Institute of Economic Tax Policy called this idea 'fundamentally different from a tax fairness perspective' from the payroll tax proposal, which would only impact the top 20% of income earners. The B&O tax proposal would burden the bottom 80% of income earners. Democrats chose this one. Now (paying close attention to the corporations mentioned above), Democrats did create some exemptions in their plan. These include computing, financial services and timber — as well as airplane sales and the sale of oil. Democrats declined to clarify their rationale for these exemptions. But, for the very same reasons cited by the Institute of Economic Tax Policy — namely, that the B&O tax is 'a sales tax by another name' — we urged Democrats to exempt food wholesalers and distributors, too, offering amendments on five separate occasions. Democrats rejected them. Restaurants and independent grocers play a vital role in ensuring access to fresh food for Washington's communities. But we cannot pledge $1 million to beat this tax increase at the ballot. When suppliers' costs go up, our members' costs go up, and they simply don't have the margins to absorb these costs themselves. The average restaurant in Washington operates on a 1.5% margin, while the average independent grocer operates on a 1.1% margin. Washington's menu prices are 12% higher than the national average. Our grocery costs are the fourth highest in the nation. Democrats' tax increase on our industries represents one-third of the average restaurant's margin and nearly half of the average independent grocer's margin. This is neither equitable nor sustainable. Lawmakers missed their chance this year to rein in runaway spending, choosing instead to add to out-of-control costs already overburdening Washington families. Yet it's not too late to undo their most unconscionable decision of all making food more expensive for Washingtonians. Gov. Ferguson, please act. Anthony Anton, of Tacoma, is president and CEO of the Washington Hospitality Association. Tammie Hetrick, of Olympia, is president and CEO of the Washington Food Industry Association.
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
WA bill to keep medical debt off credit reports signed into law
Gov. Bob Ferguson signing Senate Bill 5480, a bill that would exempt medical debt from credit reports, on April 22, 2025. (Photo by Jacquelyn Jimenez Romero/Washington State Standard) Washingtonians' medical debt will not be included in their credit reports, under a bill signed into law on Tuesday. Having medical debt can create a spiraling effect and prevent people from getting approved for car or home loans or apartment rentals. Medical debt can also cause providers to deny services to patients with outstanding bills or dissuade people from seeking care. Senate Bill 5480, sponsored by Sen. Marcus Riccelli, D-Spokane, intends to mirror efforts at the federal level that have been thrown into question. It will prohibit collection agencies from reporting overdue medical debt to credit agencies. The bill will take effect on July 27. In January, the Biden administration finalized a similar federal rule before President Donald Trump took office. It was set to take effect in March, but it is currently on pause by the Trump administration and faces legal challenges. The new state law is intended to help people like Christopher Raymond, who was diagnosed with stage 2 Hodgkin lymphoma at age 16. To get the treatment Raymond needed to survive, his dad was forced to retire and cash out his pension, which amounted to $60,000. Originally from Everett, Raymond's family moved to California so he could receive the treatment he needed, which lasted two years and required a stem cell transplant, which was not covered by his dad's insurance. The move made him eligible for Medi-Cal, California's Medicaid program, which covered his treatments. Despite the coverage, he and his family faced extreme hardships and had trouble paying for necessities such as food and utilities. 'There was a point where it got really bad that I was eating those quarter chicken legs you would get from the grocery store and it would be my only meal I could have for the day,' Raymond said. Raymond is now 28 and has been cancer-free for the past 10 years, but says his family could've been pushed into extreme debt for his treatments, which cost upward of $6 million before accounting for insurance payments. 'I shouldn't be punished for having cancer,' Raymond said. His experience is shared by many who have undergone similar health issues. When this happens, people might stop or delay treatments because they can't afford them or because their insurance companies don't approve the care. People, at times, also lose everything they own to continue their treatments, or they end up dying of cancer. Roughly six in 10 Washington adults say they could not pay an unexpected $500 medical bill, and about 30% say they live in a household with medical debt, even with health insurance, according to a report done by the Northwest Health Law Advocates. Audrey Miller García, government relations director at the American Cancer Society, explained that families can still have to pay debt they accrued from treatments if their child dies of cancer. Even when someone survives cancer, they may still need treatment for the rest of their lives. These follow-up treatments are expensive, and depending on the insurance coverage a person has, the care can land them in thousands of dollars worth of debt. Raymond still gets billed. 'My lifelong care after cancer is always going to be met with more insurance bills,' he said. He says he's been due for a CT scan for over six years, but is worried about going into debt because he cannot afford the scan even after his co-pay. 'You shouldn't be punished for having cancer, you should get through it and be able to not worry about having to live, because it's not enough to just survive, you need to live too,' Raymond said.
