December 26, 2025

Happy Holidays!

VOR's Weekly News Update

VOR is a national non-profit organization

run by families of people with I/DD and autism

for families of people with I/DD and autism.

Double Your Donation

Once again this year, a long-standing member of VOR has offered to match the contributions we receive between now and the end of this year,

up to $10,000.

This is an opportunity to double your impact.

Help us help families like yours

How Medicaid Cuts Could Reshape The Business Of Health   

By Ilene Albala, Allan Medina, Kirk Ogrosky, Andi Goodman, and Samantha Jandl,

Mondaq, December 22, 2025

Medicaid cuts passed by Congress will reduce federal spending by roughly $700 billion over the next decade¹ — the largest contraction since the program's inception — with implementation and impact varying by state. Policy measures include tighter eligibility rules, lower federal matching rates, and restrictions on the hospital and nursing home payments eligible for federal reimbursement.

The human costs are significant: loss of coverage for millions, delayed care, and worsening health outcomes. And the business implications compound the social consequences.

Healthcare companies built on Medicaid revenue face simultaneous pressures that create strategic challenges. Providers will lose both patient volume and reimbursement rates, yet they must still absorb the cost of uncompensated emergency care. Life sciences companies will see addressable markets shrink as more than 37 million children² and millions of long-term care patients lose coverage. Investors with exposure to Medicaid-dependent assets may need to reprice entire portfolios.

Even as revenues contract, federal healthcare fraud enforcement is expanding. Companies facing revenue pressure may be tempted to reduce compliance spending precisely when billing practices face heightened scrutiny. In this uncertain environment, choices about what to scale back and what to safeguard will determine which business models remain viable as public funding recedes.

Revenue Squeeze

The Medicaid changes will hit multiple revenue streams simultaneously. Federal work requirements, stricter immigration verification, and additional eligibility paperwork will reduce enrollment. Medicaid funding faces a 15% cut, payment rate caps on hospital and nursing facility reimbursements, and limitations on provider taxes that states use to fund programs. States will respond differently — some raising taxes to offset cuts; others passing reductions directly to providers and beneficiaries.

Enforcement Pressure

As revenue pressure mounts, enforcement is intensifying. Federal cuts could affect state-level Medicaid Fraud Control Units, which return approximately $4 in recoveries for every $1 spent. But that may only concentrate power at the federal level — the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) just expanded its healthcare fraud Strike Force to Massachusetts, a hub for life sciences and healthcare providers. The DOJ has emphasized the "significant return on investment" from healthcare fraud enforcement.³ Massachusetts already ranks among the top five states for Medicaid fraud recoveries.

What to Watch

Several developments will determine how this landscape evolves and what strategic responses prove viable.

First, watch state-level responses to federal cuts. States have flexibility in how they implement Medicaid reductions. Some may pursue aggressive eligibility restrictions and payment cuts. Others may seek to preserve coverage through state-funded supplemental programs or waivers. Some will attempt hybrid solutions — adjusting provider tax structures or reimbursement formulas to mitigate short-term loss. The result will be a patchwork of state responses and asymmetric exposure for companies operating nationally.

Second, monitor enforcement actions and settlement patterns. Early cases will signal whether federal enforcement targets specific billing practices, compliance program deficiencies, or particular sectors. If enforcement focuses on providers struggling with revenue pressure, it will validate the compliance investment imperative. If cases cluster around specific schemes — telehealth billing, durable medical equipment, laboratory services — companies in those sectors must prioritize internal controls concerning billing and reimbursement.

Third, observe how healthcare consolidation responds to financial pressure. If Medicaid cuts accelerate provider consolidation, larger systems may gain negotiating leverage with remaining payers. Smaller independent providers may face acquisition or closure. For life sciences companies, consolidation changes the customer landscape and may require different commercial strategies. Investor interest may shift toward vertically integrated systems better positioned to absorb reimbursement volatility.

Fourth, track legislative and regulatory responses. If coverage losses create political pressure, Congress or the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services may adjust implementation timelines or create carve-outs for specific populations or services. Regulatory changes to fraud and abuse safe harbors — particularly regarding patient assistance programs or value-based arrangements — could create new compliance risks or opportunities.

Read the full article here

Yes, Virginia, there is Waste, Abuse, and Fraud in the Medicaid system. But does the following example, showing $207 million in improper spending, justify $770 billion in cuts?

Watchdog report finds Medicaid paid more than $207 million for dead people in 1 year

By Fatima Hussein, PBS, December 23, 2025

Medicaid programs made more than $200 million in improper payments to health care providers between 2021 and 2022 for people who had already died, according to a new report from the independent watchdog for the Department of Health and Human Services.

But the department's Office of Inspector General said it expects a new provision in Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill requiring states to audit their Medicaid beneficiary lists may help reduce these improper payments in the future.

These kinds of improper payments are "not unique to one state, and the issue continues to be persistent," Aner Sanchez, deputy regional inspector general in the Office of Audit Services told The Associated Press. Sanchez has been researching this issue for a decade.

The watchdog report released Tuesday said more than $207.5 million in managed care payments were made on behalf of deceased enrollees between July 2021 to July 2022. The office recommends that the federal government share more information with state governments to recover the incorrect payments — including a Social Security database known as the Full Death Master File, which contains more than 142 million records going back to 1899.

Sharing the Full Death Master File data has been tightly restricted due to privacy laws which protect against identity theft and fraud.

The massive tax and spending bill that was signed into law by President Donald Trump this summer expands how the Full Death Master File can be used by mandating Medicaid agencies to quarterly audit their provider and beneficiary lists against the file, beginning in 2027. The intent is to stop payments to dead people and improve accuracy.

Tuesday's report is the first nationwide look at improper Medicaid payments. Since 2016, HHS' inspector general has conducted 18 audits on a selection of state programs and had identified that Medicaid agencies had improperly made managed care payments on behalf of deceased enrollees totaling approximately $289 million.

Continued

What Recent CMS Changes To Medicaid State-Directed Payments Mean For The Future Of Medicaid

By Mary-Beth Malcarney, Health Affairs, December 24, 2025   

Compared to people with other health insurance types, Medicaid recipients have far greater difficulty accessing needed outpatient ambulatory care, nursing facility, and specialty care services, due to widespread provider shortages and refusal of health care providers to accept new Medicaid patients. Low reimbursement rates are one of the primary reasons providers turn Medicaid beneficiaries away, as Medicaid rates often fall well below Medicare and commercial insurance rates and far below the cost of patient care, particularly in hospital and nursing facility settings. Where states set reimbursement rates higher, there is greater participation in Medicaid provider networks, increased staffing in nursing facilities, and direct improvements in access to care.

State Directed Payments (SDPs) are one mechanism used by states to increase reimbursement for Medicaid providers, helping to strengthen access to care for low-income Americans and drive quality improvement and efficiencies in chronic disease care. Through SDPs, states require Medicaid managed care organizations to increase provider rates in various ways, including by tying Medicaid rates to other fee schedules (for example, paying 90 percent of what Medicare would have paid for the same service) and setting a uniform dollar or percentage increase (for example, a 3 percent increase above current negotiated rates). Research shows that even small rate increases translate to more providers opening their doors to Medicaid patients and thus increased access to care.

While SDPs offer a critical financial bridge to hospitals and other providers that disproportionately serve Medicaid patients, some critics have raised concerns that growth in states’ use of SDPs has contributed to rising Medicaid expenditures. As one of many avenues to achieve cost savings under the 2025 budget reconciliation law (HR 1), Congress limited certain SDPs to the Medicare payment rate. Although many SDPs are already set at or below Medicare rates, prior regulations have allowed for SDPs to reimburse up to private commercial insurance rates, which are typically much higher.

Lowering the amount states can pay providers may yield budget savings but will also hinder states’ ability to direct higher reimbursement to vulnerable health care entities that serve Medicaid beneficiaries and the wider community, including rural hospitals and other safety-net providers. Furthermore, capping SDPs at the Medicare rate does not address the multiple factors that contribute to rising US health care costs and drive the need for higher reimbursement in the first place.

As states, providers, consumer advocates, and other stakeholders examine the potential impact of HR 1’s historical cuts to Medicaid, the law’s SDP restrictions deserve special attention; 41 states and the District of Columbia use this payment mechanism to keep Medicaid provider networks strong. This analysis examines which SDPs are impacted by the law, which are eligible for the statute’s temporary “grandfathering” period, and what questions remain after preliminary implementation guidance from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Continued

The pending Supreme Court decision that worries disability rights groups

By Maureen Groppe, USA TODAY, December 22, 2025

Because people who have intellectual disabilities often need ongoing support throughout their lives, a clinical diagnosis can help get special education, home and community-based services.

Disability rights groups fear a death penalty case before the Supreme Court could have implications for the intellectually disabled far beyond the criminal context.

The justices are considering how to weigh multiple IQ scores when determining if a death row inmate’s intellectual disability is severe enough that it would be cruel and unusual punishment to execute him.

But how the court rules could potentially affect eligibility for government services for people with disabilities, such as health care, education services and income support, according to advocates.

More than one-fifth of working-age recipients of Supplemental Security Income qualified because of an intellectual disability, according to a 2017 report.

“It’s just very critical that there be a universal definition when it comes to intellectual disability,” said Shira Wakschlag, general counsel for The Arc of the United States.

The Arc and other advocate groups worry that the court could move towards relying solely on IQ tests and not factoring in other information about someone’s ability to navigate daily life and how early any problems started.

The Supreme Court rejected that approach in 2014, ruling that Florida could not use a single IQ test to decide an inmate’s eligibility for the death penalty.

“Intellectual disability is a condition, not a number,” the court said in a 5-4 opinion.

And in 2019, the court said Texas failed to account for the possible error range in an IQ score, assuming that a score over 70 ruled out an intellectual disability.

Now, in a pending case from Alabama, the court is considering what to do when most – but not all – of a person’s IQ scores are above 70 after factoring in the error range.

Disability rights groups told the court in filings that when IQ scores are ambiguous or if their accuracy is doubted, then other evidence about how someone functions should be considered.

During the court’s December oral arguments, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson brought up the mental health community’s position.

“They seem to be saying that you’ve got to look at a lot of different things in order to come to the truth of whether or not this person is actually intellectually disabled,” she said.

Death penalty cases are only a “tiny fraction of the universe of intellectual disability assessments,” according to disability rights groups.

Because people who have intellectual disabilities generally need ongoing support throughout their lives, a clinical diagnosis can help them get special education, home and community-based services and other help.

Wakschlag, the general counsel for The Arc, said the Supreme Court has resisted past efforts by states to change its approach to intellectual disability assessment.

But if the court reverses course, she said, “those decisions have implications in terms of how future courts in other cases – and how agencies in general – define the term.”

“It’s very dangerous,” Wakschlag said, “to veer away from the clinical definition.”

Read the full article here

Last week ,the General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report entitled "Health Care Accessibility: Further Efforts Needed to Address Barriers for People with Disabilities". This week, they added supplemental materials to the original report.

Supplementary Material for GAO-26-107120

Health Care Accessibility: Further Efforts Needed to Address Barriers for People with Disabilities

GAO-26-107120 Published: December 22, 2025.

What GAO Found

People with disabilities may encounter barriers related to accessibility in the U.S. health care system; these barriers can affect the quality of their care. GAO analyzed research literature on health care accessibility and conducted interviews with stakeholders and identified the following potential barriers.

Read the full report here

Download the supplemental material here

llinois - Opinion: Don’t slide backward on disability services  

By Josh Ebans, The Illinois Times, December 24, 2025

For years, Illinois was known as a state that chronically underfunded services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD). Direct Support Professionals (DSPs) – the essential workers who provide daily care, skill building, medication assistance and community access – were paid wages that made retention nearly impossible. People with disabilities faced years-long waiting lists, limited community options and instability in the support system they depend on to live safe and meaningful lives.

In recent years, however, that narrative began to change. Under the Pritzker administration, and with bipartisan support in the General Assembly, Illinois has made steady and substantial progress. We have raised DSP wages, serviced more Illinoisans under the Ligas Consent Decree, and taken major steps to stabilize a workforce that is the backbone of community inclusion.

We cannot let that progress slip away.

Beginning Jan. 1, the state intends to reduce funded DSP service hours in 24-hour Community Integrated Living Arrangements (CILAs). These homes support more than 10,000 adults with I/DD – people who rely on trusted staff to help them navigate each day. The planned cuts would reduce critical hours of support, especially for individuals with the most complex behavioral or medical needs.

This is not an abstract policy shift. It means fewer opportunities to hold a job, socialize or simply participate in the community. It means providers – already facing workforce shortages – will have to stretch staff even thinner, fueling burnout and turnover.

As with many decisions in state government, this cut was meant to be temporary, a budget placeholder until Illinois is ready to fully fund a better model known as “zero hour” staffing. That model ensures providers have the resources needed to staff homes 24/7, something everyone agrees is long overdue.

But cutting hours now, only to add hours later, makes no fiscal or operational sense. It needlessly destabilizes people’s lives.

Layer on top of that the looming threat of deep federal Medicaid reductions over the next two years. If state cuts proceed at the same time federal dollars shrink, the result will be a service system pushed to – and over – the breaking point.

The people who would pay the price are among the most vulnerable in our state.


Continued

Nebraska - Families fear ‘devastating’ changes to Nebraska program serving people with disabilities, elderly

Public comments due Jan. 5 on proposal to limit caregiver hours, cap costs; DHHS says changes needed to keep waiver ‘sustainable’

By Zach Wendling, The Nebraska Examiner, December 24, 2025

A proposal from the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services for changes to a Medicaid waiver allowing aging Nebraskans and those with a disability to remain at home is causing panic for some families and caregivers.

The 238-page proposal to the state’s Aged and Disabled Waiver would limit the need-determined reimbursable hours of caregivers from a current cap of 112 hours to 70. Of those hours, a paid live-in family caregiver could be reimbursed up to 40 hours, a part of the program with no current cap. 

Aged and Disabled Waiver eligibility

• Be eligible for Nebraska Medicaid.............
• Have a disability or be over the age of 65.
• Meet Nursing Facility Level of Care....... ...
• Demonstrate need for services.

More information is available here.

The annual costs that Medicaid would reimburse under the waiver would also be limited based on changes in the yearly costs of nursing home care statewide.

“If they truly do this, it’s going to be pretty devastating to our family,” said Anna Keyzer of Lincoln, who has utilized the payments for up to 112 weekly hours to help afford to care for her 21-year-old son, Simon. “I don’t know how anyone would suddenly lose 72 hours’ worth of a paid job and be OK.”

Yearly nursing home costs were $92,438 in the last fiscal year, which ended June 30. Families would need an administrative review once costs reach 150% of the annual cost ($138,657), and families could be paid as much as 175% of the cost of that care ($161,767) if they pass a clinical review from a DHHS team. 

DHHS says the changes are needed to make the program, which splits costs between the state and federal government, fiscally “sustainable.” The state faces a projected $471 million shortfall by mid-2027. Pillen is seeking to cut state spending by $500 million. DHHS is the largest state agency.

LINCOLN — A proposal from the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services for changes to a Medicaid waiver allowing aging Nebraskans and those with a disability to remain at home is causing panic for some families and caregivers.

The 238-page proposal to the state’s Aged and Disabled Waiver would limit the need-determined reimbursable hours of caregivers from a current cap of 112 hours to 70. Of those hours, a paid live-in family caregiver could be reimbursed up to 40 hours, a part of the program with no current cap. 

The annual costs that Medicaid would reimburse under the waiver would also be limited based on changes in the yearly costs of nursing home care statewide.

“If they truly do this, it’s going to be pretty devastating to our family,” said Anna Keyzer of Lincoln, who has utilized the payments for up to 112 weekly hours to help afford to care for her 21-year-old son, Simon. “I don’t know how anyone would suddenly lose 72 hours’ worth of a paid job and be OK.”

Yearly nursing home costs were $92,438 in the last fiscal year, which ended June 30. Families would need an administrative review once costs reach 150% of the annual cost ($138,657), and families could be paid as much as 175% of the cost of that care ($161,767) if they pass a clinical review from a DHHS team. 

DHHS says the changes are needed to make the program, which splits costs between the state and federal government, fiscally “sustainable.” The state faces a projected $471 million shortfall by mid-2027. Pillen is seeking to cut state spending by $500 million. DHHS is the largest state agency.

‘Pulling their lives apart’

Keyzer adopted Simon from Bulgaria in 2013, just before his 9th birthday. He weighed 18 pounds then and now weighs 72. Keyzer became his caregiver when he turned 19, and the family struggled to find outside options, including some who would quit soon after or leave during a shift. 

Simon has Renpenning syndrome, a rare genetic condition that occurs mostly in males. He is hard of hearing and blind, has auto-aggression, is tube fed and has osteoporosis because of a lack of nutrition when young.

Marie Wohlers of Crawford said her family is reimbursed for 80 weekly hours of family provided care under the AD Waiver to care for her 28-year-old daughter, Michaela. Wohlers noted that in the Nebraska Panhandle, support systems are already fairly limited, and she said families are mindful of rising costs.

“I feel like it’s pulling their lives apart, and with no support systems in place that if this happens, what happens to these individuals?” Wohlers said.

"I really, truly hope that they listen to us family members, as caregivers, as taxpayers, that our opinion truly counts, because we are what the State of Nebraska is about."

Michaela has Rett syndrome, a rare genetic neurological disorder that primarily affects females and causes progressive loss of motor skills and language. She is unable to move herself, can’t walk or talk, is tube fed, has severe gastrointestinal issues, is at-risk for pressure sores and has a seizure disorder. 

Wohlers said she and her husband involve Michaela in their Panhandle cow-calf ranching operation as much as possible.

Wohlers worries the proposal puts Michaela and others at a higher risk for poor health or being taken advantage of. Wohlers said the waiver is meant to give individuals a better quality of life.

“I just feel like a lot of these things are going to make things more challenging, and it’s going to limit the quality of life for a lot of individuals,” said Wohlers, a former Crawford school board member.

Those wishing to submit public comments can email dhhs.HCBSPublicComments@Nebraska.gov, fax 402-471-8792 or mail Division of Developmental Disabilities, 301 Centennial Mall South, P.O. Box 95026, Lincoln, NE 68509-5026. DHHS hosted four public forums in mid-December.

Read the full article here

New Jersey - Key takeaways from our Hidden at Home series on NJ group homes

By Ashley Balcerzak and Jean Rimbach, The Bergen Record (North Jersey. com) December 22, 2025

NorthJersey. com spent more than a year delving into New Jersey’s $1.5 billion group home system for adults with developmental disabilities, uncovering a lack of basic care for residents, dozens of preventable deaths and a state agency that repeatedly failed to keep poorly performing companies in check.  

For the resulting series, Hidden at Home, which ran in May of 2025, reporters interviewed hundreds of family members, group home staff, providers, experts, advocates and residents with developmental disabilities, and reviewed tens of thousands of pages of documents. 

After the series published, the state hosted forums where advocates and families called on leaders to overhaul oversight of a system of 2,000 homes caring for more than 8,000 people.

The state stepped up enforcement and stopped admissions at three group home providers — a notable change from past actions.

And the state attorney general brought charges against one of the state’s largest group home companies for neglect and abuse.  

What’s more, an assemblyman recently introduced legislation to overhaul New Jersey’s system for investigating abuse and neglect at group homes, and another bill to control how public money is spent by group home companies.  

The state has traditionally posted scant and confusing information online about group home companies. Then, after Hidden at Home ran, it announced a planned website overhaul was in the works.  

To fill the void, NorthJersey. com built an interactive tool including documents never posted online. The public can now access state reports of companies that were punished over the past decade, and read what inspectors found in the homes.  

Here are some key takeaways from the series: 

NJ does not investigate all unexpected group home deaths

 An average of 120 group home residents die unexpectedly each year, meaning they were not in hospice or palliative care, according to data first obtained by NorthJersey. com.  

Over the past six years, Human Services conducted only 70 investigations into deaths. That means the agency investigated less than 10% of all unexpected deaths in licensed residential settings.  

What’s more, the state substantiated neglect in 25 cases — but the state says the finding does not mean “the death was caused by neglect.”  

Continued

Idaho Medicaid transition raises questions for providers, recipients

State’s yearslong shift to managed care drew questions during a legislative listening session earlier this week

By Royce McCandless, The Lewiston Tribune, December 20, 2025

A panel this week on Idaho’s Medicaid transition was largely characterized by discussion of the future administrative burden faced by health care providers and the varying uncertainties among Medicaid recipients about the growing role out-of-state parties will have in the administration of in-state services.

The Idaho Legislature’s Medicaid Review Panel’s meeting at Madison Health Hospital in Rexburg on Monday was one of several regional stakeholder listening sessions that will be taking place across the state through May of next year as the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare seeks feedback on its change in how Medicaid functions in the state of Idaho.

Idaho previously administered Medicaid through the traditional fee-for-service system where the state directly contracts with and pays health care providers a fee for each service provided, such as an office visit or procedure, to a recipient of Medicaid. That is changing with this year’s passage of House Bill 345, that implements a new Medicaid framework known as managed care.

Under the new managed care system, Idaho will use third-party contractors to administer Medicaid benefits and provide oversight for the system. These third parties, known as managed-care organizations (MCOs), will take responsibility for paying health care providers and coordinating care, and, to keep costs down, will be emphasizing preventative care to avoid more serious medical benefits that burden the limited resources of Idaho’s rural hospitals and community clinics, according to the legislation.

Full transition will be years in the making

While Idaho has a few MCO contracts at present, this would mark a comprehensive transition to a managed care operation.

This transition will be years-long and the IDHW will take a “phased approach” to the transition that will see most Medicaid programs under managed care by Jan. 1, 2029. Developmental disability services will be operational under managed care two years later, in January 2031, said Sasha O’Connell, IDHW deputy director and state Medicaid administrator.

While this feels far off, O’Connell said the department will be writing requests for proposals to third-party administrators to organize competitive bidding for the third-party administrators by October of next year with contracts being awarded in May 2027. In total, the beneficiaries will be able to choose from three different plans, which have yet to be finalized.

With this in mind, the department is now seeking input from Medicaid beneficiaries from across the state as the transition gets underway to compile their hopes and concerns about the transition, their issues with Medicaid and the desired improvements for the health insurance system. The panel of state legislators provided attendees, consisting of both health care providers and Medicaid recipients, the opportunity to do just that.

Continued

Please share this offer with your loved one's

Direct Support Professionals!

VOR ❤️s OUR

DIRECT SUPPORT PROFESSIONALS!

Our loved ones' caregivers are essential to their health, safety, and happiness.

In appreciation of their good work and kind hearts, VOR offers free digital memberships to any DSP who would like to receive our newsletter.

We encourage our members to speak with their loved ones' caregivers to extend this offer of our gratitude.

If you are a Direct Support Professional interested in receiving our newsletter and e-content, please write us at

info@vor.net

with your name, email address, and the name of the facility at which you work. Please include the name of the VOR member who told you of this offer.

[Please click on blue link to view information about the bill]

VOR SUPPORTS:

H.R.6137 / S.3211 - Rep.Brian Fitzpatrick (R-NJ) and Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) - A bill to require the Office of Management and Budget to consider revising the Standard Occupational Classification system to establish a separate code for direct support professionals

H.R.4796 - Rep. Laura Friedman (D-CA) - Restoring Essential Healthcare Act -To amend Public Law 119-21 (The One Big Beautiful Bill Act) to repeal the prohibition on making payments under the Medicaid program to certain entities.

H.R.4807 - Rep Greg Landsman (D-OH) - Protect Our Hospitals Act - To amend Public Law 119-21 to repeal certain changes to provider taxes under the Medicaid program. 

H.R.1262 & S.932 - Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) and Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) "Give Kids A Chance Act" - To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to molecularly targeted pediatric cancer investigations. This bill would renew research into pediatric cancers and includes increasing funding for rare diseases, some of which cause Intellual and developmental disabilities and autism.  

H.R.1509 & S.752 - Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA) & Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

Accelerating Kids' Access to Care Act -

This bill would amend titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act to streamline the enrollment process for eligible out-of-state providers under Medicaid and CHIP, and streamline enrollment under the Medicaid program of certain providers across State lines.

H.R.2598 & S.1277 - Rep Jared Huffman (D-CA) and Sen Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) The IDEA Full Funding Act

To amend part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to provide full Federal funding of such part.

S.2279 - Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO)

A bill to repeal the changes to Medicaid State provider tax authority and State directed payments made by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and provide increased funding for the rural health transformation program.

H.R.1950 - Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) - Protect Social Security and Medicare Act

To protect benefits provided under Social Security, Medicare, and any other program of benefits administered by the Social Security Administration or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 

S.779 & H.R.1735 - Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) & Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX)

To amend title XIX of the Public Health Service Act to provide for prevention and early intervention services under the Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services program

H.R.2491 & S.1227 - Rep Kat Cammack (R-FL) & Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA) - The ABC Act

To require the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Commissioner of Social Security to review and simplify the processes, procedures, forms, and communications for family caregivers to assist individuals in establishing eligibility for, enrolling in, and maintaining and utilizing coverage and benefits under the Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and Social Security programs



VOR OPPOSES:

H.R.2743 & S.1332 - Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) & Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) Raise the Wage Act - A bill to provide increases to the Federal minimum wage and for other purposes. VOR opposes the provision in this bill that would phase out section 14(c) and sheltered workshops for indiviiduals with I/DD and autism.

S.2438 - Transformation to Competitive Employment Act (Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) - A bill to assist employers providing employment under special certificates issued under section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 in transforming their business and program models to models that support people with disabilities through competitive integrated employment, to phase out the use of such special certificates, and for other purposes. 

FACEBOOK: /VOR ----- TWITTER: @VOR_NET -----

Visit our YouTube Page

And visit our YouTube Archives here