WA Cares: Voters reject Initiative 2124 in election 2024

Washington voters rejected state ballot Initiative 2124, with about 55.5% of initial ballots counted Tuesday night including votes against the initiative, an encouraging sign for those who want to preserve the state's public long-term care insurance program.

The initiative, which drew 44.5% of early votes, would have made participation in the state's WA Cares program optional, meaning Washington workers could have been able to decide against paying the 0.58% payroll tax and becoming eligible for long-term care benefits. Initiative supporterssaid the change would have saved residents money and added flexibility to the program, but those who want to protect WA Cares worried the ballot measure would have gutted the fledgling fund and left residents without a safety net for expensive long-term care.

Initiative 2124 was certified in early January, largely thanks to a signature-gathering campaign organized by Redmond hedge fund manager Brian Heywood, who emerged as one of the most consequential figures in Washington politics this fall and who backed all four initiatives on the ballot.

Heywood jumped into the issue of long-term care expenses, in part, to expand options for people who feel overtaxed" in general, he said in an October interview. And while Heywood has been quick to clarify Initiative 2124 would not immediately halt funding for WA Cares, he's also not a fan of the program, which he called "shameful and fraudulent."

The No On I-2124 campaign started celebrating shortly after initial vote counts became available Tuesday evening.

“The defeat of I-2124 is a huge victory for millions of Washingtonians, working families, and especially women and people with preexisting conditions,” a statement from the campaign said. “This win in Washington has national implications because many other states are watching closely as they build their own long-term care safety nets.”

At a Kirkland campaign party for Let's Go Washington, Heywood's political action committee, attendees reacted to the results with some disappointment.

"Unfortunately tonight there’s three (initiatives) that don’t look like they’re getting past the finish line," Heywood said to the crowd, referring to Initiatives 2109, 2117 and 2124.

Heywood said his campaign "didn’t have the financial firepower to fire back against the billionaires" advocating against the initiatives, but that he plans to learn from the experience and "come out fighting."

WA Cares was approved by state lawmakers in 2019, making Washington the first state to fund a public insurance system that could help people pay for care as they age or in case of disability. The goal is to prevent people from being forced to empty their savings or sell their home in order to cover long-term medical support or other resources, supporters say.

The program offers a $36,500 lifetime benefit — slated to start in 2026 — that covers a range of services, including home nursing, meal delivery, transportation and some medical equipment.

But it's been a rocky start for WA Cares. Since the program was passed, it's faced a slew of criticisms and obstacles that triggered a federal lawsuit (which was later dismissed) and delayed its start date twice.

Lawmakers have attempted to address some concerns in the past couple of years, including expanding exemptions and making the program "portable," meaning benefits will follow people if they move elsewhere.

But critics of WA Cares, including Heywood, see problems.

For one, he says, the $36,500 benefit isn't nearly enough to cover most long-term home nursing or nursing facility costs. Workers also lose eligibility if they stop working for five or more years, which Heywood says doesn't make sense, especially for parents who take time off to raise kids.

Supporters of WA Cares acknowledge the program needs work. Passing Initiative 2124 and making the program optional, however, would have meant the end of the entire fund, according to long-term care and economics experts.

While the ballot measure, if it had passed, wouldn't have immediately halted funding for WA Cares, more and more people would have eventually opted out of the program, particularly younger, healthier residents, said Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center in Washington, D.C.

The pool of funds that covers benefits would also shrink, making premiums more expensive for everyone else who stays enrolled, and likely contributing to further dropouts. The process is called a "death spiral, Gleckman said during a panel discussion last month.

Seattle Times reporter Alex Halverson contributed to this story. Information from The Seattle Times archives was also included.

© 2026 The Seattle Times. Visit www.seattletimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.