This can be a ‘big, beautiful' win for Americans with disabilities
But more must be done to strengthen incentives for people with disabilities to move to, remain in, and thrive within their communities.
As an advocate who has fought for services to emancipate people with disabilities from institutional warehousing for nearly half a century, I can, without equivocation, write that large congregate care is less effective and significantly more expensive than any home- or community-based living arrangement. Funding can and should be allocated in a more humanitarian and utilitarian way when it comes to community programs.
When President Ronald Reagan signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, the federal government recognized home- and community-based care as an alternative to costly institutions. Although the idea was to save money, the bill gave rise to the unexpected benefit of incentivizing states with innovative leadership to shift towards managing services rather than simply paying claims.
This sea-change enabled states such as New Jersey and New York to close institutions and move people back into their communities. In addition, these reforms caused a multitude of lawsuits against institutional abuse, which enabled a more expeditious shift for community placements and allowed the disabled to thrive in small homes.
I worked in New Jersey when it had several more institutions than it does now. In 1981, there were almost 9,000 people living in institutions. Today, there remain approximately 3,000 people living in the five remaining institutions and private nursing homes at a cost of nearly $450,000 per person per year in the state.
Over the last few years, I have visited state-run institutions in Corpus Christi, El Paso, and Dallas, which house thousands of people with disabilities who could work and live in their communities. Most of the funding in Texas is used to house people in institutions, which can cost nearly half a million dollars per person each year. In comparison, a person receiving community services, such as host homes, costs Medicaid only about $54,000 per year. Deinstitutionalization is slowing in Texas, and in recent years, the number of people who have moved from institutions into the community has declined significantly.
Unfortunately, without incentives to close institutions, local legislators are intent on keeping them open to protect what is often the largest employer in their districts. It's a tough decision, but it requires the political will to do the right thing. Stop keeping our most vulnerable in institutions, and allow them to live in their own communities and have better lives.
Community-based programs that support parents in providing in-home care offer invaluable opportunities for people with disabilities to stay connected to the places they call home.
We now need the federal government to work with states and providers and ensure quality care is given to our most vulnerable. We have made steps in this direction, but President Trump has a unique opportunity to lead the charge in ensuring our family, friends and neighbors aren't shut in institutions but rather allowed to receive the care they need and the opportunity for lives in the communities they live in.
I am encouraged that Trump and Congress accomplished this legislation, and I hope to help them as they reform outdated methods of care for people with disabilities.
Robert Stack is the founder, president, and CEO of Community Options, Inc., a national non-profit organization that develops housing and employment for 6,000 people with disabilities across 12 states. Stack has been a national leader in the continuing struggle to improve the lives of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
States file lawsuit against Trump administration over efforts to collect SNAP recipients' data
Washington (AP) — A coalition of 20 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit Monday challenging the Trump administration's demand that their states turn over personal data of people enrolled in a federally funded food assistance program, fearing the information will be used to aid mass deportations. The data demand comes as the Trump administration has sought to collect private information on mostly lower-income people who may be in the country illegally. It has already ordered the Internal Revenue Service and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to share private information with the Department of Homeland Security to aid in deportation efforts. The U.S. Department of Agriculture told states last week that it had until Wednesday to hand over the data for those enrolled in its Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which serves more than 42 million people nationwide. The USDA said the data will help it combat waste, fraud and abuse. The states' lawsuit seeks an injunction to block the data transfer. In the meantime, state attorneys general in the SNAP lawsuit said they will not disclose what they consider to be private information of recipients — including their immigration status, birthdates and home addresses — because they believe it would be a violation of privacy laws. 'It's a bait-and-switch of the worst kind,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a Monday afternoon news conference announcing the lawsuit. 'SNAP recipients provided this information to get help feeding their families, not to be entered into a government surveillance database or be used as targets in the president's inhumane immigration agenda.' In May, the department announced it was seeking the data as part of President Donald Trump's executive order to obtain data from state programs to help root out fraud and waste. 'For years, this program has been on autopilot, with no USDA insight into real-time data,' USDA Secretary Brooke L. Rollins said in a statement at the time. 'The Department is focused on appropriate and lawful participation in SNAP, and today's request is one of many steps to ensure SNAP is preserved for only those eligible.' USDA officials declined a request for comment on the suit. The USDA did not mention immigration enforcement in the announcement or later notices. It is not clear why USDA officials believe the data will help it weed out fraud and abuse. The agency claims the program is already 'one of the most rigorous quality control systems in the federal government.' Immigration advocates noted that the Trump administration has used the same argument to obtain other sensitive data, only to later admit it would be using the information to enhance its deportation operations. Trump administration officials, for example, initially claimed they were seeking state Medicaid data to fight fraud. Last week, a top immigration official conceded they would be utilizing that same information to locate immigrants. Agency officials have threatened to withhold SNAP funding if states fail to comply with their demand for data. While immigrants without legal status are ineligible to receive SNAP benefits, they can apply on behalf of their children who are U.S. citizens or those who are part of a mixed-status household. Under the program, formerly known as food stamps, the federal government pays for 100% of the food benefits, but the states help cover the administrative costs. States are also responsible for determining whether individuals are eligible for benefits and for issuing those benefits to enrollees. Immigration and data privacy advocates expressed alarm at the Trump administration's efforts to obtain sensitive SNAP data maintained by states. 'The administration has all but told us that their intention is to comb this data and use it for unlawful purposes that include immigration enforcement,' said Madeline Wiseman, an attorney with the National Student Legal Defense Network, which filed a lawsuit in May with privacy and hunger relief groups that are also challenging USDA's efforts for SNAP data. —-
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
States file lawsuit against Trump administration over efforts to collect SNAP recipients' data
Washington (AP) — A coalition of 20 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit Monday challenging the Trump administration's demand that their states turn over personal data of people enrolled in a federally funded food assistance program, fearing the information will be used to aid mass deportations. The data demand comes as the Trump administration has sought to collect private information on mostly lower-income people who may be in the country illegally. It has already ordered the Internal Revenue Service and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to share private information with the Department of Homeland Security to aid in deportation efforts. The U.S. Department of Agriculture told states last week that it had until Wednesday to hand over the data for those enrolled in its Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which serves more than 42 million people nationwide. The USDA said the data will help it combat waste, fraud and abuse. The states' lawsuit seeks an injunction to block the data transfer. In the meantime, state attorneys general in the SNAP lawsuit said they will not disclose what they consider to be private information of recipients — including their immigration status, birthdates and home addresses — because they believe it would be a violation of privacy laws. 'It's a bait-and-switch of the worst kind,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a Monday afternoon news conference announcing the lawsuit. 'SNAP recipients provided this information to get help feeding their families, not to be entered into a government surveillance database or be used as targets in the president's inhumane immigration agenda.' In May, the department announced it was seeking the data as part of President Donald Trump's executive order to obtain data from state programs to help root out fraud and waste. 'For years, this program has been on autopilot, with no USDA insight into real-time data,' USDA Secretary Brooke L. Rollins said in a statement at the time. 'The Department is focused on appropriate and lawful participation in SNAP, and today's request is one of many steps to ensure SNAP is preserved for only those eligible.' USDA officials declined a request for comment on the suit. The USDA did not mention immigration enforcement in the announcement or later notices . It is not clear why USDA officials believe the data will help it weed out fraud and abuse. The agency claims the program is already 'one of the most rigorous quality control systems in the federal government.' Immigration advocates noted that the Trump administration has used the same argument to obtain other sensitive data, only to later admit it would be using the information to enhance its deportation operations. Trump administration officials, for example, initially claimed they were seeking state Medicaid data to fight fraud. Last week, a top immigration official conceded they would be utilizing that same information to locate immigrants. Agency officials have threatened to withhold SNAP funding if states fail to comply with their demand for data. While immigrants without legal status are ineligible to receive SNAP benefits, they can apply on behalf of their children who are U.S. citizens or those who are part of a mixed-status household. Under the program, formerly known as food stamps, the federal government pays for 100% of the food benefits, but the states help cover the administrative costs. States are also responsible for determining whether individuals are eligible for benefits and for issuing those benefits to enrollees. Immigration and data privacy advocates expressed alarm at the Trump administration's efforts to obtain sensitive SNAP data maintained by states. 'The administration has all but told us that their intention is to comb this data and use it for unlawful purposes that include immigration enforcement,' said Madeline Wiseman, an attorney with the National Student Legal Defense Network, which filed a lawsuit in May with privacy and hunger relief groups that are also challenging USDA's efforts for SNAP data. —- Contact the AP's global investigative team at Investigative@ or . Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Planned Parenthood Medicaid funding restored, as Dems seek BBB rollback
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani on Monday expanded a decision she handed down last week in which she issued a temporary injunction restoring Medicaid for 10 Planned Parenthood affiliates. Talwani found the law retaliated against Planned Parenthood in violation of its First Amendment rights. 'Patients are likely to suffer adverse health consequences where care is disrupted or unavailable,' Talwani wrote in the Monday ruling. 'In particular, restricting Members' ability to provide healthcare services threatens an increase in unintended pregnancies and attendant complications because of reduced access to effective contraceptives, and an increase in undiagnosed and untreated STIs.' Separately, Democrats, spearheaded by Reps. Laura Friedman (Calif.), Nikema Williams (Ga.), Chris Pappas (N.H.) in the House and Sens. Tina Smith (Minn.) and Patty Murray (Wash.) in the Senate, plan to introduce legislation that would repeal that provision of the law. The measure won't advance in the GOP-controlled Congress, but it highlights how Democrats are continuing to mobilize and message around reproductive rights. 'We're fighting to ensure people can continue getting the essential care they count on, no matter who they are or where they live,' Friedman said in a statement shared with The Hill. Trump's tax and spending package includes a provision that bars health care providers from being able to reimburse Medicaid for a year if they provide abortions and received more than $800,000 in federal funding in 2023. The lawsuit challenges that provision, because there's almost no other organization that meets the $800,000 threshold. Talwani ruled it is 'easily ascertainable' that Planned Parenthood was specifically targeted, despite the law not mentioning the organization by name. The Trump administration already appealed a temporary restraining order that Talwani imposed just after the lawsuit was filed. But pending any action from the appeals court, Monday's ruling will stand while the case plays out. Taxpayer money is already prohibited from covering most abortions. Instead, the new law cuts reimbursement for other health services provided by Planned Parenthood and other health centers, such as cancer screenings and treatment for sexually transmitted infections. For more legal coverage, sign-up for The Hill's courts newsletter The Gavel, written by Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld. It publishes every Wednesday. Click here to sign up & get it in your inbox.
