HB 2300
In CommitteeHouse
Worker health care costs
Assessing employers for their workers' health care costs paid by the state.
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 creates a new assessment program where large employers (500+ workers in Washington) whose employees are enrolled in Apple Health (Medicaid) must help pay for the state’s health care costs for those workers. It also strengthens protections against employer retaliation for workers seeking Apple Health coverage and updates reporting requirements for Apple Health enrollment data by employer.
- Establishes the Apple Health Corporate Assessment Program, requiring large employers (500+ Washington workers) to pay an assessment for each worker they employed who was enrolled in Apple Health during a quarter.
- The assessment amount is based on the state’s per-capita cost of Apple Health services for that quarter, multiplied by the number of enrolled workers employed by the employer.
- Employers who pay for health coverage for *all* their Apple Health-enrolled workers are exempt from the assessment.
- Imposes civil penalties (up to 20% of the assessment) and interest (1% per month) for late or nonpayment, and suspends the employer’s eligibility for state tax preferences and funding for up to five years.
- Prohibits employers from discriminating or retaliating against workers for applying for, enrolling in, or seeking information about Apple Health—violations carry civil remedies including damages, attorney fees, and reinstatement.
- Requires the Health Care Authority to set and publish quarterly assessment values, and the Department of Employment Security to calculate assessments, notify employers, collect payments, and enforce compliance.
Who is affected
- Large employers (500+ workers in Washington) — Large employers (500+ workers in Washington) with workers enrolled in Apple Health (Medicaid) may be required to pay an assessment to help cover the state's costs for those workers' health care services.
- Apple Health enrollees who are employed — Workers enrolled in Apple Health who are employed by large employers may be affected if their employer chooses not to offer health coverage and instead pays the assessment—this bill prohibits employers from retaliating against such workers.
- State agencies (Health Care Authority and Department of Employment Security) — The Washington Health Care Authority and Department of Employment Security will jointly implement and administer the new assessment program, including calculating assessments, collecting payments, and sharing data.
- Job applicants and workers seeking Apple Health coverage — Workers who apply for or enroll in Apple Health may be protected from employer retaliation under new anti-discrimination provisions.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill generates dedicated revenue to offset Apple Health costs by requiring large employers to pay assessments based on the state’s per-capita Apple Health spending. This reduces the state’s general fund burden and helps preserve program eligibility and benefits amid federal funding uncertainty. Funds are deposited into a dedicated account and used exclusively to reimburse HCA for health care services for enrollees—ensuring transparency and targeted use of funds.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 6; Sec. 3(4)(a)-(b)The bill strengthens worker rights by prohibiting employer retaliation for enrolling in Apple Health and providing civil remedies—including damages, attorney fees, and reinstatement—for violations. This empowers low-wage workers (who are most likely to rely on Apple Health) to seek coverage without fear of job loss or demotion, potentially increasing enrollment and health equity.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 4(1)-(5); Sec. 4(2)(a)The bill improves data transparency by requiring quarterly reporting of Apple Health-enrolled workers by employer, including employer size and compliance status. This enhances accountability and allows the legislature to monitor program effectiveness and employer behavior over time. While not directly benefiting everyday people, better data supports more informed policy decisions that could improve public health outcomes.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 3(2)(a); Sec. 5(3)(a)The bill creates a neutral framework where employers can choose to either provide health coverage for all Apple Health-enrolled workers or pay an assessment—preserving employer autonomy while ensuring state fiscal responsibility. This avoids mandating employer-sponsored insurance, respecting employer discretion while internalizing the public cost of uncovered workers’ care.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 3(1); Sec. 3(4)(c)The bill includes exemptions for employers who fully cover Apple Health-enrolled workers and for seasonal employers, reducing unintended burden on small businesses and cyclical industries. This targeted flexibility helps ensure the program targets large, resource-rich employers most capable of absorbing the cost without passing it to workers.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 2(4)(a); Sec. 2(4)(b)
Potential Concerns (5)
Large employers (500+ workers) face new administrative and financial burdens—including assessment payments, penalties, interest, and potential suspension of tax preferences—if they do not cover all Apple Health-enrolled workers. While the assessment is designed to be revenue-neutral for the state, it creates a direct cost to employers, which may lead to reduced hiring, wage stagnation, or outsourcing to avoid triggering the 500-worker threshold. The 20% civil penalty and 1% monthly interest for late/nonpayment compound this burden, especially for marginally profitable firms.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(4)(c); Sec. 6The bill prohibits employer retaliation against workers for enrolling in Apple Health, but the anti-retaliation provisions are reactive and enforcement-dependent. Workers must file complaints with the Human Rights Commission or pursue civil litigation, which is time-consuming and costly. The rebuttable presumption of retaliation (within 90 days of notice) helps, but the burden remains on the worker to prove discrimination, and remedies (e.g., $5,000 statutory damages) may be insufficient to deter large employers with deep pockets.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 4(2)(a)(iii); Sec. 4(5)The bill shifts administrative responsibility for Apple Health enrollment verification and assessment calculation from the Health Care Authority (HCA) to the Department of Employment Security (DES), potentially straining DES’s existing infrastructure. While DES already collects wage and unemployment data, integrating Medicaid enrollment data requires new systems, training, and interagency coordination—costs that may divert resources from core unemployment services. Local governments are not directly involved, but state-level administrative complexity could delay benefit processing for all residents.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(a); Sec. 3(2)(b); Sec. 5(2)(a)The bill does not directly affect public safety outcomes. However, by ensuring Apple Health reimbursement for enrolled workers, it may indirectly support public safety by stabilizing access to behavioral health and substance use services for low-income workers—populations disproportionately represented in the justice system. This is speculative and not a primary goal of the bill.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 3(2)(c); Sec. 5(2)(c)The suspension of state tax preferences and funding for noncompliant employers creates a disincentive for noncompliance, but the policy does not directly impact employment levels or business formation. Since the assessment only applies to employers with 500+ Washington workers, most small and medium-sized businesses are unaffected. However, firms near the 500-worker threshold may restructure (e.g., split into separate entities or reduce hours) to avoid triggering the assessment, potentially affecting workers’ hours.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 3(4)(c)
Who Is Most Affected
Large employers with 500+ Washington workers and Apple Health-enrolled employees face direct financial liability unless they fully cover those workers. While the assessment is based on state per-capita Apple Health costs (not market-rate premiums), it represents a new cost of doing business. Employers may respond by increasing wages, reducing hiring, or expanding coverage—though evidence suggests large firms are more likely to absorb costs than cut jobs.
Workers enrolled in Apple Health who are employed by large employers gain stronger protections against retaliation and may benefit from increased employer-sponsored coverage if firms choose to avoid assessments. However, if employers reduce hiring or hours to stay below the 500-worker threshold, these workers could face reduced employment opportunities or hours.
The state gains dedicated revenue to offset Apple Health costs, helping preserve program eligibility amid federal funding uncertainty. However, the administrative burden falls on HCA and DES, which must develop new systems for cross-agency data sharing and assessment calculation—potentially straining existing resources.
Workers and job applicants gain new legal protections against employer retaliation for seeking Apple Health coverage, which may increase enrollment and reduce health disparities. However, enforcement depends on individual complaints and civil litigation, which may be inaccessible to the most vulnerable workers (e.g., undocumented, low-literacy, or recently displaced).