HB 1664
In CommitteeHouse
Long-term care ombud funding
Providing sufficient funding for the Washington state long-term care ombuds program.
- Introduced (completed)
- 2Committee (current stage)
- 3Floor Vote (not started)
- 4Opposite Chamber (not started)
- 5Governor (not started)
- 6Signed (not started)
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill requires Washington State to develop and submit annual funding recommendations for the Long-Term Care Ombuds Program to ensure it has enough resources to protect residents’ rights. It sets a target staffing level of one ombuds per 2,000 residents and requires adjustments for facility growth, inflation, and administrative needs.
- Requires the Long-Term Care Ombuds Program, in partnership with the Department of Commerce and consulting with the Office of Financial Management, to develop annual funding recommendations by September 1 (starting in 2025).
- Funding recommendations must ensure staffing at the ratio of one full-time ombuds for every 2,000 residents, as recommended by the Institute of Medicine.
- Must account for projected growth in licensed long-term care beds (per the Caseload Forecast Council) and inflation (based on the Consumer Price Index).
- Must include funding for administrative needs of the Department of Commerce.
- Requires the Department of Commerce to submit the annual funding recommendation to the Office of Financial Management and legislative fiscal committees for budget consideration.
Who is affected
- Residents of licensed long-term care facilities — Residents of licensed long-term care facilities (e.g., nursing homes, assisted living) who rely on the ombuds program to help resolve complaints and protect their rights as vulnerable adults.
- Long-term care ombuds staff and program leadership — Staff and leadership of the Washington State Long-Term Care Ombuds Program, who would receive increased funding to meet staffing and operational needs.
- State agencies and legislative fiscal committees — State agencies involved in budget planning and oversight—including the Department of Commerce, Office of Financial Management, and legislative fiscal committees—who must review and act on funding recommendations.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for concerns
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill mandates a staffing ratio of one ombuds per 2,000 residents, which would significantly improve oversight and responsiveness to abuse, neglect, and exploitation in long-term care facilities — directly enhancing the safety and well-being of vulnerable adults.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a)By ensuring adequate staffing to meet the Institute of Medicine’s recommendation, the bill strengthens enforcement of residents’ statutory rights under chapter 70.129 RCW, including dignity, autonomy, and protection from abuse — rights currently under-enforced due to chronic underfunding.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a), Sec. 2(1)(b)Indexing funding to inflation helps maintain real-world capacity to serve residents as care costs rise, preventing erosion of service quality over time — especially important for elderly and disabled residents who rely on consistent ombuds support.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(c)Explicit inclusion of administrative funding for the Department of Commerce ensures program sustainability and reduces administrative friction — though this is a cost to the state budget, it improves operational efficiency of a critical oversight function.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(d)Linking staffing to projected growth in licensed beds ensures the program scales with demand — preventing future backlogs in complaint resolution as Washington’s aging population grows.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(b)
Who Is Most Affected
- Residents of licensed long-term care facilitiesPositive Impact
Residents of long-term care facilities — especially those with cognitive impairments, physical disabilities, or limited family support — will benefit most. They are currently underserved; ombuds help resolve complaints about care quality, medication errors, and abuse. Improved staffing means faster, more thorough investigations and advocacy.
- Long-term care ombuds staff and program leadershipPositive Impact
Ombuds staff will benefit from reduced caseloads and improved ability to fulfill their mandate. Current ombuds often manage 300+ residents each — far exceeding the recommended 2,000:1 ratio — leading to burnout and delayed interventions. This bill would allow hiring to meet national best practices.
- State agencies and legislative fiscal committeesMixed Impact
State agencies (Commerce, OFM) gain a clearer, legally mandated budgeting process with built-in inflation and growth adjustments — reducing discretionary uncertainty. Legislative fiscal committees benefit from standardized, data-driven funding requests.
- Facility operators (especially under-resourced small providers)Negative Impact
Long-term care facilities may face more frequent ombuds visits and complaint investigations, potentially increasing compliance burdens — but this also incentivizes better internal oversight to avoid formal complaints. Net effect is likely neutral-to-slightly-negative due to added administrative costs.
- Families and caregivers of long-term care residentsPositive Impact
Families of residents benefit indirectly through increased confidence in oversight and faster resolution of concerns — but they do not directly fund or manage the program. This is a modest positive impact, concentrated among middle- and upper-income families with loved ones in care facilities.
Sponsors
- Representative Zahn(Democrat)District 41Primary
- Representative Gregerson(Democrat)District 33Secondary
- Representative Street(Democrat)District 37Secondary
- Representative Reed(Democrat)District 36Secondary
- Representative Eslick(Republican)District 39Secondary
- Representative Ormsby(Democrat)District 3Secondary
- Representative Scott(Democrat)District 43Secondary
- Representative Macri(Democrat)District 43Secondary
- Representative Thai(Democrat)District 41Secondary
- Representative Simmons(Democrat)District 23Secondary