As commissioner, Peterson sees DDS 'through a different lens'
Peterson, who served as general counsel at DDS from 2022 to 2024, took over at the agency in September following the retirement of Jane Ryder. DDS serves more than 49,000 children and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities, autism spectrum disorder and acquired brain injuries, Peterson said at a recent budget hearing.
In recent months, Peterson said she's prioritized visiting DDS group homes, community-based day programs, day habilitation programs and assistive technology center facilities.
'As a lawyer for DDS, I spent a lot of time behind the desk,' Peterson told the News Service on Thursday. 'And now, getting out in the field and meeting the people who we support, meeting their families and meeting our workforce has just been really wonderful for me to see the agency through a different lens, and hear firsthand a lot of the great work that we're doing that is causing improvements in people's lives and allowing them to access the community, or gain employment or be more independent.'
DDS is grappling with surging demand from Bay Staters who need more complex care, including young adults in the Turning 22 program. The agency is in the process of consolidating group homes that had long-term vacancies to save costs and redirect resources.
DDS is also bracing for potential federal funding cuts to Medicaid and SNAP benefits, which Peterson told lawmakers 'would have a devastating impact on people with disabilities.' DDS generates $1 billion in Medicaid revenue each year that flows into the state's General Fund, which Peterson said comes from reimbursements on home- and community-based waivers.
'We're just trying to really stay closely on top of that,' Peterson said. 'I meet weekly with some of my counterparts around the country, so we can all share information to make sure that we're staying on top of what's coming out of Washington and can kind of collectively prepare for it.'
Disability advocates have called on lawmakers to significantly increase funding to the human services sector, with the aim of boosting pay for direct support professionals and paring down long wait lists for care.
Peterson acknowledged the workforce 'continues to be an issue,' though she pointed to early signs of progress after last year's budget invested $390 million into human services provider rates.
'We've seen some data that the rate increases, the Chapter 257 rate increases that were rolled out by the Legislature last year, have already started improving things in terms of our workforce,' Peterson said. 'We've seen lower vacancy rates across provider agencies.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
Key decisions that will shape rural health fund
States next year will begin tapping the $50 billion rural health fund in the GOP's tax and spending law, but questions have already arisen about how the funds will be allocated — and how much they will benefit rural providers. Why it matters: The fund aims at helping rural hospitals and providers adjust to sweeping changes in how Medicaid is financed, including limits on provider taxes and state-directed payments. But important details have to be fleshed out. What they're saying: Sen. Josh Hawley, who pushed for the fund, in part to get his vote for the megabill, said CMS will need to make sure the money "flows to hospitals that need it" and are not simply "going to states in general to do whatever they want with it." "So far, so good. I liked how it was written up," Hawley said. "But we'll want to monitor closely how the agency puts it into effect." Sen. Thom Tillis, who was one of the three GOP "no" votes on the reconciliation bill, told Axios that CMS needs to "make sure it's a fair formula for rural hospitals." "I think that that pot of money looks big, but it's not really when you consider some of the economic impacts, mainly from the state-directed payments," Tillis said. "We'll be interested to see how they interpret the law." How it works: The new law allocates $10 billion annually for the next five years, starting in 2026. The law says $25 billion is to be distributed equally among all states that submit a "detailed rural health transformation plan," which could include details on how they would use the funds. Between the lines: States can apply for the aid only once, by the end of this year. If they estimate wrong, or run into unforeseen problems, they don't get another shot at it. CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz must approve each state's application by Dec. 31. CMS has discretion to distribute the other $25 billion, based on factors such as how much of the state's population is rural and the number of rural health facilities. The CMS administrator can also consider other factors deemed appropriate. Friction point: Some of that flexibility raises questions about how CMS will proceed, said Zach Levinson, director of the KFF Project on Hospital Costs. "States will also have discretion on how they distribute funds among hospitals and other providers," Levinson said. "And they maybe will steer some dollars to non-rural areas, pending CMS approval." The concern is that some states could be favored over others, or that funding will not go to providers with the greatest needs. "There are risks of this becoming a slush fund if it's not carefully attended to and if it's not focused" on actual rural hospitals, said Jackson Hammond, a senior policy analyst at Paragon Health Institute. All the money has to be distributed by 2030 and spent by 2032. That also means much of the assistance will have already been spent before the provider tax and state-directed payment provisions take effect in 2028. The $50 billion sum also is about one-third of the $155 billion in estimated cuts to federal Medicaid spending in rural areas, per a KFF analysis.
Los Angeles Times
4 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump voters wanted relief from Medical bills. For millions, the bills are about to get bigger
President Trump rode to reelection last fall on voter concerns about prices. But as his administration pares back federal rules and programs designed to protect patients from the high cost of health care, Trump risks pushing more Americans into debt, further straining family budgets already stressed by medical bills. Millions of people are expected to lose health insurance in the coming years as a result of the tax cut legislation Trump signed this month, leaving them with fewer protections from large bills if they get sick or suffer an accident. At the same time, significant increases in health plan premiums on state insurance marketplaces next year will likely push more Americans to either drop coverage or switch to higher-deductible plans that will require them to pay more out-of-pocket before their insurance kicks in. Smaller changes to federal rules are poised to bump up patients' bills, as well. New federal guidelines for COVID -19 vaccines, for example, will allow health insurers to stop covering the shots for millions, so if patients want the protection, some may have to pay out-of-pocket. The new tax cut legislation will also raise the cost of certain doctor visits, requiring copays of up to $35 for some Medicaid enrollees. And for those who do end up in debt, there will be fewer protections. This month, the Trump administration secured permission from a federal court to roll back regulations that would have removed medical debt from consumer credit reports. That puts Americans who cannot pay their medical bills at risk of lower credit scores, hindering their ability to get a loan or forcing them to pay higher interest rates. 'For tens of millions of Americans, balancing the budget is like walking a tightrope,' said Chi Chi Wu, a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. 'The Trump administration is just throwing them off.' White House spokesperson Kush Desai did not respond to questions about how the administration's health care policies will affect Americans' medical bills. The president and his Republican congressional allies have brushed off the health care cuts, including hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid retrenchment in the mammoth tax law. 'You won't even notice it,' Trump said at the White House after the bill signing July 4. 'Just waste, fraud, and abuse.' But consumer and patient advocates around the country warn that the erosion of federal health care protections since Trump took office in January threatens to significantly undermine Americans' financial security. 'These changes will hit our communities hard,' said Arika Sánchez, who oversees health care policy at the nonprofit New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty. Sánchez predicted many more people the center works with will end up with medical debt. 'When families get stuck with medical debt, it hurts their credit scores, makes it harder to get a car, a home, or even a job,' she said. 'Medical debt wrecks people's lives.' For Americans with serious illnesses such as cancer, weakened federal protections from medical debt pose yet one more risk, said Elizabeth Darnall, senior director of federal advocacy at the American Cancer Society's Cancer Action Network. 'People will not seek out the treatment they need,' she said. Trump promised a rosier future while campaigning last year, pledging to 'make America affordable again' and 'expand access to new Affordable Healthcare.' Polls suggest voters were looking for relief. About 6 in 10 adults — Democrats and Republicans — say they are worried about being able to afford health care, according to one recent survey, outpacing concerns about the cost of food or housing. And medical debt remains a widespread problem: As many as 100 million adults in the U.S. are burdened by some kind of health care debt. Despite this, key tools that have helped prevent even more Americans from sinking into debt are now on the chopping block. Medicaid and other government health insurance programs, in particular, have proved to be a powerful economic backstop for low-income patients and their families, said Kyle Caswell, an economist at the Urban Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C. Caswell and other researchers found, for example, that Medicaid expansion made possible by the 2010 Affordable Care Act led to measurable declines in medical debt and improvements in consumers' credit scores in states that implemented the expansion. 'We've seen that these programs have a meaningful impact on people's financial well-being,' Caswell said. Trump's tax law — which will slash more than $1 trillion in federal health spending over the next decade, mostly through Medicaid cuts — is expected to leave 10 million more people without health coverage by 2034, according to the latest estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The tax cuts, which primarily benefit wealthy Americans, will add $3.4 trillion to U.S. deficits over a decade, the office calculated. The number of uninsured could spike further if Trump and his congressional allies don't renew additional federal subsidies for low- and moderate-income Americans who buy health coverage on state insurance marketplaces. This aid — enacted under former President Joe Biden — lowers insurance premiums and reduces medical bills enrollees face when they go to the doctor or the hospital. But unless congressional Republicans act, those subsidies will expire later this year, leaving many with bigger bills. Federal debt regulations developed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under the Biden administration would have protected these people and others if they couldn't pay their medical bills. The agency issued rules in January that would have removed medical debts from consumer credit reports. That would have helped an estimated 15 million people. But the Trump administration chose not to defend the new regulations when they were challenged in court by debt collectors and the credit bureaus, who argued the federal agency had exceeded its authority in issuing the rules. A federal judge in Texas appointed by Trump ruled that the regulation should be scrapped. Levey writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.
Los Angeles Times
6 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Criminalization or support? President Trump's executive order on homelessness gets mixed reaction
An executive order signed by President Trump purporting to protect Americans from 'endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks' attributed to homelessness has left local officials and homeless advocates outraged over its harsh tone while also grasping for a hopeful message in its fine print. The order Trump signed Thursday would require federal agencies to reverse precedents or consent decrees that impede U.S. policy 'encouraging civil commitment of individuals with mental illness who pose risks to themselves or the public or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves.' It ordered those agencies to 'ensure the availability of funds to support encampment removal efforts.' Depending on how that edict is carried out, it could extend a lifeline for Mayor Karen Bass' Inside Safe program, which has eliminated dozens of the city's most notable encampments but faces budget challenges to maintain the hotel and motel beds that allow people to move indoors. Responding to the order Friday, Bass said she was troubled that it called for ending street homelessness and moving people into rehabilitation facilities at the same time as the administration's cuts to Medicaid have affected funding 'streams for facilities for people to stay in, especially people who are disabled.' 'Of course I'm concerned about any punitive measures,' Bass said. 'But first and foremost, if you want to end street homelessness, then you have got to have housing and services for people who are on the street.' Kevin Murray, president and chief executive of the Weingart Center homeless services and housing agency, saw ambiguity in the language. 'I couldn't tell whether he is offering money for people who want to do it his way or taking money away from people who don't do it his way,' Murray said. Others took their cue from the order's provocative tone set in a preamble declaring that the overwhelming majority of the 274,224 people reported living on the street in 2024 'are addicted to drugs, have a mental health condition, or both.' The order contradicted a growing body of research finding that substance use and mental illness, while significant, are not overriding factors in homelessness. 'Nearly two-thirds of homeless individuals report having regularly used hard drugs like methamphetamines, cocaine, or opioids in their lifetimes. An equally large share of homeless individuals reported suffering from mental health conditions.' A February study by the Benioff Homeless and Housing Initiative at UC San Francisco found that only about 37% of more than 3,000 homeless people surveyed in California were using illicit drugs regularly, but just over 65% reported having regularly used at some point in their lives. More than a third said their drug use had decreased after they became homeless and one in five interviewed in depth said they were seeking treatment but couldn't get it. 'As with most executive orders, it doesn't have much effect on its own,' said Steve Berg, chief policy officer for the National Alliance to End Homelessness. 'It tells the federal agencies to do different things. Depending on how the federal agencies do those things, that's what will have the impact.' In concrete terms, the order seeks to divert funding from two pillars of mainstream homelessness practice, 'housing first,' the prioritization of permanent housing over temporary shelter, and 'harm reduction,' the rejection of abstinence as a condition of receiving services and housing. According to the order, grants issued under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration should 'not fund programs that fail to achieve adequate outcomes, including so-called 'harm reduction' or 'safe consumption' efforts that only facilitate illegal drug use and its attendant harm.' And the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development should, to the extent permitted by law, end support for 'housing first' policies that 'deprioritize accountability and fail to promote treatment, recovery, and self-sufficiency.' To some extent, those themes reflect shifts that have been underway in the state and local response to homelessness. Under pressure from Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California legislature established rules allowing relatives and service providers to refer people to court for treatment and expanded the definition of gravely disabled to include substance use. Locally, Bass' Inside Safe program and the county's counterpart, Pathway Home, have prioritized expanding interim housing to get people off the streets immediately. Trump's order goes farther, though, wading into the controversial issue of how much coercion is justified in eliminating encampments. The Attorney General and the other federal agencies, it said, should take steps to ensure that grants go to states and cities that enforce prohibitions on open illicit drug use, urban camping and loitering and squatting. Homeless advocacy organizations saw those edicts as a push for criminalization of homelessness and mental illness. 'We'll be back to the days of 'One Flew Over the Cuckcoo's Nest,' 'Berg said, referring to the 1962 novel and subsequent movie dramatizing oppressive conditions in mental health institutions. Defending Housing First as a proven strategy that is the most cost-effective way to get people off the street, Berg said the order encourages agencies to use the money in less cost-effective ways. 'What we want to do is reduce homelessness,' he said. 'I'm not sure that is the goal of the Trump administration.' The National Homelessness Law Center said in a statement saying, 'This Executive Order is rooted in outdated, racist myths about homelessness and will undoubtedly make homelessness worse.... Trump's actions will force more people into homelessness, divert taxpayer money away from people in need, and make it harder for local communities to solve homelessness.' Murray, who describes himself as not a fan of Housing First, noted that key policies pressed in the order—civil commitment, encampment removal and substance use treatment—are already gaining prominence in the state and local response to homelessness. 'We all think if it came from Trump it is horrible,' Murray said. 'It is certainly overbearing. It certainly misses some nuances of what real people with mental illness and substance use are like. But we've started down the path of most of this stuff.' His main concern was that the order might be interpreted to apply to Section 8, the primary federal financial tool for getting homeless people into housing. What would happen, he asked, if someone with a voucher refused treatment? 'It might encourage more people to stay on the streets,' he said. 'Getting people into treatment isn't easy.'
