Senate Labor & Commerce held a public hearing on Senate Bill 5,548, a measure sponsored by Senator Shoemake that would change how health-care premiums are treated in Washington’s workers’ compensation time‑loss benefits and adjust the percentage schedule used for permanent total disability wage replacement.

The bill would require that, for claims filed on or after July 1, 2026, the employer’s entire contribution for healthcare benefits be included in the worker’s workers’ compensation payments. The bill also alters the current schedule of percentage wage replacement—keeping the base at 60% for unmarried workers with no dependents and raising some steps so that single parents receive parity with married workers; supporters said detailed tables in the bill report show the before-and-after effect.

Why it matters: Supporters said losing employer‑paid health insurance while recovering from an on‑the‑job injury can worsen medical outcomes and financial instability for families. "Losing your health care in the middle of a health episode is not ideal," Senator Shoemake said during her testimony, arguing the change would let injured workers and their families maintain continuity of care. Labor unions and worker advocates told the committee the bill would limit reliance on COBRA or uninsured care and would particularly help single parents.

Proponents: Representatives of building and construction trades and labor unions described cases where injured workers’ families lost coverage. Ray Dumas of Operative Plasters and Cement Masons Local 528 told the committee that time‑loss payments leave workers with partial wage replacement and can cause a loss of health insurance. Rachel Hammar of the Washington State Association for Justice and Joe Kendall of the Washington State Labor Council urged passage, saying the full value of insurance should be applied to time‑loss benefits so families can continue treatment during recovery. "This will help injured workers heal and get back to work quicker," Kendall said.

Opponents and concerns: Small business and industry groups raised implementation concerns. Patrick Connor of NFIB warned the committee the bill, as written, could discourage small employers from offering health insurance and suggested the insurance payment should be routed directly from L&I to the employer, the insurance trust, or the insurer rather than sent to the injured worker. Carolyn Logue of Associated Builders and Contractors and Lauren Gubbi of AGC asked for protections to ensure payments result in the actual purchase of insurance and expressed concern about fairness across employers with differing plan costs. Several business witnesses also raised questions about attorney fees and whether the health‑insurance component could become part of an attorney fee calculation.

Process and fiscal: A fiscal note was requested for SB 5,548 but was not available at the hearing. Committee members encouraged proponents and opponents to submit written comments for staff review.

Public testimony and record: The committee clerk reported 269 pro, 47 con and 3 other pieces of testimony on the bill at the close of the public‑testimony period.

Where it goes next: No executive action on SB 5,548 was recorded in the transcript of this session; the hearing record will inform future consideration.

Ending: Committee members thanked witnesses and moved on to other agenda items. The bill remains under consideration pending fiscal analysis and further negotiation on implementation details.