HB 2600
In CommitteeHouse
Supported living cost report
Updating the supported living cost report.
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 the state to update how supported living providers report staffing and compensation data to improve transparency and address the shortage of direct support professionals. It also creates a work group to recommend changes to Medicaid rates that would increase wages for direct support professionals, with a requirement that providers use rate funds to improve compensation.
- Require the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) to update the supported living cost report template by July 1, 2026 to comply with federal rules and address the direct support professional (DSP) workforce shortage.
- Mandate that the updated report includes detailed staffing data: full-time equivalent (FTE) counts, headcounts by staff type, average hourly wages, and detailed benefit information (e.g., health insurance, retirement, paid time off) for each category of instruction and support staff, including specialists.
- Require disaggregated revenue data, including by client tier and non-Medicaid sources.
- Establish a supported living work group with members including DSHS leadership, three provider representatives (at least one nonprofit, one for-profit), a person with a disability advocate, and three union DSP representatives, to develop Medicaid rate recommendations aimed at improving DSP compensation.
- Require the work group to consider how providers must use the instructional support services rate to improve DSP pay, and to recommend penalties for noncompliance.
- Require DSHS to issue a final report with findings and wage investment recommendations to the legislature by December 1, 2026, and set an expiration date of September 1, 2028 for this section.
- Define key terms: direct support professional (staff who help individuals with disabilities implement their service plans, excluding managers or supervisors) and supported living provider (organizations offering services under RCW 71A.10.020).
Who is affected
- Supported living providers — Providers must submit more detailed staffing and compensation data in their cost reports and may face penalties if they fail to meet wage investment requirements for direct support professionals.
- Direct support professionals — Direct support professionals may benefit from improved compensation and working conditions if the work group’s recommendations are adopted, as the bill requires providers to use rate funds to improve DSP wages.
- Individuals receiving supported living services — People with intellectual, developmental, or physical disabilities who receive supported living services may experience more consistent, high-quality support as a result of improved staffing and compensation standards.
- State government agencies — State agencies (especially the Department of Social and Health Services) must develop and implement new reporting standards, convene a work group, and report recommendations to the legislature.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Mandating detailed wage and benefit reporting will expose disparities in DSP compensation and allow policymakers and advocates to directly compare provider practices—creating transparent evidence to push for equitable pay increases, which directly improves retention and quality of care for people with disabilities.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(c), (d)Including a person-with-disability advocate and union DSP representatives in the work group ensures that those most affected by staffing shortages—clients and frontline workers—have formal input into rate design, increasing the likelihood that recommendations reflect ground-level realities.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)(iii), (iv)Requiring providers to use the instructional support services rate specifically to improve DSP compensation—coupled with potential penalties for noncompliance—creates a structural lever to redirect funds toward frontline wages, addressing the root cause of the workforce shortage.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(b)Disaggregating revenue by client tier and non-Medicaid sources will clarify how much providers rely on Medicaid vs. other funding, helping policymakers identify gaps and target rate adjustments to close the compensation gap without overburdening any one payer.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), (2)(e)Defining 'direct support professional' to exclude managers and supervisors—while including frontline instruction and support staff—ensures that wage investment requirements apply to those who actually deliver services, preventing diversion of funds to administrative overhead.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(5)(a)
Potential Concerns (5)
Providers—especially smaller or marginally profitable ones—may face increased administrative and compliance costs due to the requirement to collect, verify, and report granular wage, benefit, and staffing data, which could strain limited resources in an already underfunded sector.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(c), (d)The work group’s composition—dominated by large providers and union reps—may marginalize smaller providers and non-union DSPs, whose perspectives and operational constraints (e.g., rural clinics, solo practices) may be underrepresented in rate recommendations.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)(ii), (iv)Mandating that providers use the instructional support services rate specifically to improve DSP compensation—without specifying funding sources or cost-of-living adjustments—could pressure providers to cut other services or delay hiring if rates do not rise proportionally, potentially reducing service continuity for clients.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(b)The bill’s lack of funding guarantees or enforcement mechanisms for penalties means that if rate increases do not materialize, providers may face punitive requirements without additional resources—potentially increasing risk of service disruption or staff burnout, indirectly affecting client safety.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(b), (e)The sunset date of September 1, 2028 creates uncertainty about long-term implementation, potentially discouraging providers from investing in systemic staffing improvements unless the legislature reauthorizes or codifies the changes.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(6)
Who Is Most Affected
DSPs are the primary intended beneficiaries: improved transparency and mandated wage investment could significantly raise wages and reduce turnover, especially if rate increases materialize. However, if providers cut other services to meet wage mandates without additional funding, some DSPs in under-resourced programs may see no net gain.
Individuals with disabilities are likely to benefit from more stable, higher-quality support due to improved DSP retention and morale. However, if providers reduce service hours or close programs due to compliance costs or rate stagnation, service continuity could suffer.
Larger providers (especially nonprofits with unionized staff) are well-positioned to absorb reporting costs and benefit from rate increases; smaller, for-profit, or non-union providers may struggle with compliance costs and face pressure to raise wages without corresponding rate hikes, increasing financial strain.
DSHS gains new data tools to monitor workforce trends and justify rate adjustments, but must invest staff time and resources in convening the work group, analyzing data, and reporting to the legislature—costs that may strain already tight budgets.
Unions representing DSPs gain a formal seat at the table in rate-setting and can leverage the data mandate to advocate for better compensation—strengthening their role in shaping policy and improving member wages and conditions.