Washington State’s Immigrant Health Care Program Faces Shortfall

In Washington state, Democrats quickly approved a $20 million health care initiative aimed at assisting immigrants. However, upon reviewing the expenditures, it turns out that only 173 immigrants will benefit, far fewer than the anticipated 300 out of a possible 1,200 recipients initially intended for the program.

Advocates and Democratic lawmakers had pushed for the health care bill, aiming to extend coverage to 1,200 noncitizen residents of the state. The Democratic-controlled Congress wasted no time in voting to fund this initiative.

Nonetheless, SEIU 775, a union that actively campaigned for the program, reported that the allocated funds would only support 173 noncitizens, which Adam Glickman, the union’s secretary-treasurer, described as “disappointing and frustrating.”

Lawmakers now assert that to genuinely fulfill the commitment to cover all 1,200 non-nationals, the program would need tens of millions of dollars more. Initially, the $20 million was projected to cover 300 noncitizens in the 2026-27 period, but the funding was exhausted before even reaching 200 individuals. A larger budget of at least $100 million will be necessary to meet the initial goal of 300. Moreover, Democratic Rep. Nicole Macri mentioned that fully funding services for all 1,200 immigrants could require an annual budget of $100 million.

The inception of this program was in response to Medicaid cuts implemented during the Trump administration, which stripped coverage from non-citizens. State Democrats estimate that by October, about 14,000 noncitizens will lose their Medicaid eligibility.

Activists are now urging state Democrats to revisit the drawing board and devote significantly more state tax funds toward immigrant health care, especially given the failure of the current plan to cover those who lost federal funding.

SEIU 775 leaders are increasing their efforts to persuade state Democrats to allocate millions more into the program, highlighting how federal funding reductions could jeopardize jobs for unionized home health workers.

However, Glickman is cautious about the feasibility of these demands, particularly given ongoing budget deficits and financial overruns within the state. “Considering the budget situation, it seems quite challenging to secure everything. We’re just asking them to do what they can,” he remarked.