February 6, 2026

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.

Registration is Open!

VOR's 2026 Legislative Initiative

June 8 - 10

Washington D.C.

We are proud to announce that we will be returning to Capitol Hill this June.

We have a limited number of hotel rooms avaialable, at the ridiculously low price of $178 per night for a single room, $269 per night for a double.

Please register for the initiative now to reserve your rooms.

This is a critical year for our families.

Last year, Congress passed legislation that cut Medicaid by nearly

One Trillion Dollars.

They ignored our pleas for better wages and benefits for DSPs.

Their actions have cut the DSP workforce dramatically.

They have cut Special Education programs for people with I/DD and autism.

They have acted like we do not exist.

This year, we have to show up, stand up, and speak up.

We are the voice of our loved ones who cannot speak for themselves.

Last week, we featured a cost study from our friends at the Saving Wrentham and Hogan Alliance (repeat appearance below). This week, the group's Irene Tanzman has started a five part series on the history of legal battles in Massachusetts.

This series, and the cost study, provide legal and financial insights that should be relevant to VOR families in every state. We encourage our folks to read these thoroughly, and if possible, to create similar studies showing conditions in your own states.

Introduction: Why Massachusetts Keeps Getting Sued Over Disability Services

Saving Wrentham and Hogan Alliance, February 6, 2026

Part One: MA Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Lawsuits

Massachusetts is often praised as a national leader in disability services. The state repeats this claim in legislative hearings, agency reports, and public messaging. But the historical record tells a very different story, one in which progress has come not from vision or leadership, but from federal judges, class‑action lawsuits, and decades of court‑ordered reform

For more than fifty years, families have turned to the courts because every other avenue failed them. And each time, the courts uncovered the same underlying truth: Massachusetts does not protect the rights of people with intellectual disabilities unless it is forced to.

This series examines four major lawsuits — Rolland, Ricci, Boulet, and Hutchinson. These cases reshaped the state’s disability system.

Each case involved a different population, a different setting, and a different set of failures. Yet together, they reveal a single, unmistakable pattern:

• The state ignores systemic problems until families sue.
• The courts intervene.
• The state complies only under pressure.
• And once oversight ends, the system drifts back into crisis.

These lawsuits are not ancient history. Their themes echo in today’s collapsing day habilitation programs, unsupported group homes, rejected high‑acuity individuals, and the quiet return of custodial institutionalization in community-based services and nursing homes.

Why We Begin with Rolland v. Cellucci

Most families believe that once their adult loved one is settled in a group home or shared living arrangement, they will be set for life. They imagine aging in place, surrounded by familiar staff, routines, and peers. They assume that the provider who has cared for their son or daughter for decades would never simply say, “We can’t handle them anymore.”

Read the full article here

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



If you haven't yet read this cost analysis, we encourage you to download it and read it now.

Cost Comparison Study

for

High-Acuity Individuals in Massachusetts

The Saving Wrentham and Hogan Association, an advocacy group working to renew admissions to Massachusetts' two remaining state-operated ICFs, has released an extensive report providing a detailed, data‑driven look at what it actually costs to support individuals with the most complex medical and behavioral needs, and it exposes the gap between those real costs and the assumptions driving current HCBS policy. 

Although the analysis focuses on Massachusetts, the underlying issues are national: states are underestimating the resources required for high‑acuity care, and individuals with the most significant needs are the ones most at risk when systems are stretched too thin.

Please click here to download the cost comparison

Opinion: Why should my daughter lose her home care services just for crossing a state line? 

By Rob Taishoff, The Hill, February 2, 2026

I am the father of a 24-year-old woman with Down syndrome — a daughter whose courage, joy, and determination guide my work every single day.

I hear stories from families across the country who are desperate for stability and fairness. And I am still struck by the fundamental injustice we face: In America, a person with disabilities can lose essential services, financed by the federal government, just by moving to a new state.

For my daughter and millions like her, Medicaid Home and Community Based Services, or care supports at home, are not optional. They are lifelines. Yet unlike Social Security or Medicare — or a driver’s license, for that matter — these supports do not follow you across state lines. There is no reciprocity, no guaranteed continuity, no safety.

Medicaid Home and Community Based Services allow a person like my daughter to live at home, be in the community or work more independently by providing care supports in a home setting. The alternative would be a facility for long-term care or a nursing home. This program is optional for states, and each state runs its home care programs differently, with its own rules, assessments, provider networks, and waiver systems. That means if people with disabilities or their families need to move — whether to be near family after a parent passes, for a job, or simply for a better climate — they lose the supports they depend on every day and are forced to start again at square one.

Imagine telling any other group that their basic services disappear the moment they step across a border. That’s the reality everyday for the disability community.

Not only do families need to navigate different rules for every state, but they also get put back on a waitlist for services if they move to a new state. In many states, the waitlists for Home and Community Based Services are not months long — they are years long. Some families wait a decade or more.

So when families move from State A to State B, they cannot simply transfer their places in line. They effectively fall off a cliff. Everything they have built up to that point disappears, and they must wait again — often for years — just to regain services they had previously.

This isn’t a policy gap; it is a moral failure that keeps families trapped and often blocks upward mobility.

Across the country, caregivers are aging. Parents like myself are thinking deeply about what happens after we’re gone. My daughter’s siblings love her fiercely and want to support her, but they live in other states.

Under today’s system, relocating my daughter to live near them would mean losing her services, losing her daily routine and support staff and waiting to qualify again, possibly for years.

Families should not have to choose between staying in place until they physically cannot provide care, or uprooting their loved one and throwing them into bureaucratic uncertainty.

Continued

Trump Wanted To Cut Disability Programs. Congress Just Said No

By Michelle Diament, Disability Scoop, February 5., 2026

After months of uncertainty, federal lawmakers approved a spending package that rejects Trump administration efforts to alter the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and do away with some disability programs.

President Donald Trump signed a bill this week to fund much of the federal government through September. The deal brings to a close a tumultuous period for disability programs punctuated by two government shutdowns.

“This vote blocks many of the most damaging proposed cuts, keeps key disability programs level funded, and preserves the (U.S.) Department of Education’s authority to enforce education laws,” The Arc of the United States said in a statement. “People with disabilities and families need stability they can plan around, not constant uncertainty about the supports they rely on.”

In his budget request last year, the president called for altering IDEA to allow federal funding for certain programs to be consolidated in order to give states more control over spending, but Congress chose not to act on that plan. Advocates said that if such a change had gone through, it would have affected Parent Training and Information Centers, technical assistance centers, training for new special educators and general educators, assistive technology and accessibility supports and more.

What the federal funding bill approved this week does include, however, is language designed to thwart the Trump administration’s efforts to move special education out of the Education Department.

In addition, the spending plan retains the Administration for Community Living, which oversees programs helping people with disabilities access all range of services in their communities and advocates for the needs of people with disabilities, older adults, families and caregivers across the federal government. The Department of Health and Human Services had announced plans last year to break up the Administration for Community Living as part of a broad reorganization plan.

Read the full article here

Nine states challenge federal mandate that disabled people receive care in community

By O. Rose Broderick, STAT News, January 29, 2026

A lawsuit targeting a landmark disability law has received new life after nine states filed an update that seeks to undercut federal mandates that people with disabilities receive care in their communities.

Texas, Florida, and seven other states allege that the Biden administration’s 2024 update to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is unconstitutional — specifically, the requirement that states must fund services in the “most integrated setting.” 

Section 504 prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in any setting that receives federal financial assistance, including health care facilities. Disability advocates say a retreat from this protection could eventually funnel people requiring long-term care back into facilities that sequestered them from society and that they fought for decades to escape.

“The right to live and participate in the community is one of the most fundamental rights under disability law,” said Alison Barkoff, a disability rights lawyer and the former head of the Administration for Community Living. “It is a hard-fought right that people with disabilities have been using since the Olmstead decision in 1999, and any efforts to weaken the integration mandate seriously concern me.”

The updated lawsuit alleges that the Biden administration’s changes were unconstitutional under the spending clause and exceeded the scope of HHS’s authority under Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, even though the Supreme Court upheld the integration mandate in the Olmstead v. L.C. decision in 1999. 

The lawsuit’s outcome could have major implications for millions of Americans, especially after Congress voted in 2025 to slash state Medicaid funding, a major source of care for people with disabilities. If successful, the lawsuit would be a major blow to people with disabilities, especially after the Trump administration has explicitly targeted diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility since taking office.

Read the full article here

Read a related article at Disability Scoop

Limiting Choice: The consolidation of private intermediate care facilities.

FTC Takes Action to Prevent Anticompetitive Healthcare Services Merger 

Press release from the Federal Trade Commission, January 30, 2026

Today, the Federal Trade Commission took action to protect Americans with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families by requiring Sevita Health (Sevita) to divest more than 100 healthcare facilities to resolve antitrust concerns surrounding its proposed $835 million acquisition of BrightSpring Health Services, Inc.’s (BrightSpring) community living business.

Sevita, a subsidiary of Centerbridge Seaport Acquisition Fund, L.P., seeks to acquire BrightSpring’s community living business—ResCare Community Living (ResCare)—which would combine the two largest national providers of residential services to individuals with intellectual and development disabilities, known as IDD services.

Under the FTC’s proposed consent order, Sevita will be required to divest 128 intermediate care facilities (ICFs), which provide IDD services, and other assets such as day-training programs. The divested facilities—which are in Indiana, Louisiana, and Texas—will be acquired by Dungarvin Group, Inc. (Dungarvin), an experienced and well-regarded operator of ICFs.

The FTC’s proposed consent order settles FTC charges that Sevita’s acquisition of ResCare from BrightSpring would reduce the quality of care and options for ICF services for individuals with intellectual and development disabilities in certain markets within Indiana, Louisiana, and Texas.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that Sevita’s acquisition of ResCare would eliminate competition between Sevita and BrightSpring, which has been critical to ensuring the two providers compete on quality and choice. A reduction in quality of ICF services could result in a reduced incentive to maintain, invest in, or improve facilities, staffing levels and training, care standards, safety protocols, and individualized services—which are all critical factors for vulnerable populations.

A reduction in choice would lead to a reduction in the variety of providers, curtailing families’ ability to select facilities aligned with their unique needs and preferences. A reduction in quality and choice directly impacts the dignity, autonomy, and well-being of individuals with intellectual and development disabilities, the FTC’s complaint alleges.

Read the full press release (and draw your own conclusions) here

How people with disabilities could bear the burden of Medicaid funding cuts

By Judy Woodruff and Amna Nawaz, PBS News Hour, January 30, 2026

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act will slash more than a trillion dollars in federal spending from Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program by 2034. Judy Woodruff examines what those cuts could mean for home and community care providers who serve adults with special needs. It's part of her series, Disability Reframed.

Excerpts from the video:

Judy Woodruff: Alice Burns studies Medicaid and the uninsured for KFF, an independent health research group. She says Virginia is expected to lose nearly 20 percent of its federal Medicaid funding by 2034, and that day programs like Bright Center could be especially vulnerable.

Sidikie Kamara is the president of Bright Center, a day program for special needs adults in Manassas, Virginia. Five days a week, the center provides education and a host of activities for participants like exercise class, arts and crafts, and meditation.

Alice Burns: With this level of a funding cut, states are going to have to make some tough choices about how to deal with the loss of federal funds. And we know that home and community care for people with disabilities is a significant source of Medicaid funding. And almost all the services are optional for states to cover.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary: There's no cuts to Medicaid. There's simply restrictions in the growth of Medicaid over the next decade.

Judy Woodruff: The Trump administration has repeatedly said there would be no cuts to Medicaid and that it's committed to rooting out waste, fraud and abuse in the program.

The Department of Health and Human Services also provided the "News Hour" with this statement, which reads in part: "The One Big Beautiful Bill removes quote illegal immigrants from eligibility, implements work requirements for able-bodied adults and safeguards Medicaid for the vulnerable populations it was created to serve, pregnant women, children, low-income seniors, people with disabilities and struggling families."

But Laurie Sills is worried about what those changes will mean for her 28-year-old son, Nicholas.

Laurie Sills, Mother of Nicholas Sills: Quite frankly, Nicholas, he's a wonderful kid.He really is. But he needs some support in just about everything he does.

Judy Woodruff: As a young boy, Nicholas was diagnosed with cerebral palsy and then autism. He's been coming to Bright Center since 2019.

Laurie Sills: He's here with people his own age. He's here with people that he is involved with. He's got staff that cares for him and he loves the staff here. So it's a place that I know that he's comfortable coming to and that I'm comfortable bringing him to every day. So it means a lot to me.

Judy Woodruff: Sills says Bright Center is the only nearby day program that accepts the Virginia Medicaid waiver she relies on to pay for these services. And without the center, she'd be forced, she says, to shoulder even more of her son's round-the-clock care.

Laurie Sills: He's never left alone. He likes to go into the kitchen and he will press buttons. He will go to the stove. I don't in general have babysitters. I don't have any family in the area. So I really don't have any other care for him but me right now.

Judy Woodruff: It's a common story for parents at Bright Center, says Sidikie Kamara [.

Sidikie Kamara: Once they graduate from high school, it's kind of like the state kind of just washes their hands. It's kind of like you're on your own now. So that's where we come in.

Judy Woodruff: Virginia's Medicaid program currently reimburses Bright Center $69 per student per day. But Kamara says that's barely enough to keep going. And while he's already relying on donations and his own savings to stay open, it's what could come next that worries him most.

We're at a moment now where the federal government is making some changes. How is that affecting your outlook?

Sidikie Kamara: It will affect a lot of the families and it will affect us as a facility, because then we may end up losing the small students that we have now.

Judy Woodruff: For parents like Laurie Sills, she's already feeling the impact of budget cuts. She says, last fall, the state reduced the number of hours she will be reimbursed as her son's primary caregiver going forward.

Laurie Sills: I'm sure there is some waste, fraud and abuse. I'm sure there is throughout the system, but every case is not waste, fraud and abuse. Some individuals really need the care. and, quite frankly, that's my son that really does need the care.

Judy Woodruff: Care that could become even harder to find for so many families across the country.

Watch the video here

State Protection and Advocacy agency

Utah: Disability Law Center says it’s doing its job, but a lawmaker calls it ‘anti-family’

By Annie Knox, Utah News Dispatch, February 6, 2026

A state lawmaker says it’s time to reevaluate a Utah nonprofit’s longtime status as a designated watchdog for those with disabilities, to the dismay of many supporters and clients.     

Every state has a protection and advocacy agency, authorized by federal law to investigate abuse, neglect and violations of people’s rights. Since 1978, that agency in Utah has been the Disability Law Center based in Salt Lake City.  

Speaking to colleagues on a legislative panel this week, the sponsor of the proposal to reconsider that relationship cited frustration from families and caregivers surrounding the center’s work tied to Utah’s legal guardianship system. Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, said they’ve told him the Disability Law Center, “in some instances, comes across as very anti-family.” 

Some of those exasperated parents also appealed to the Senate committee on Wednesday. But so did the center’s supporters. They said it does a good job and they’re afraid of what will happen if it loses its status and related federal funding.  

Frustrated parents who criticized the Disability Law Center spoke of wanting to protect their vulnerable adult children but not having the benefit of legal help from the center when seeking guardianship.

But its attorneys cannot help them as a matter of federal law, said Nate Crippes, the center’s public affairs supervising attorney. 

“We represent people with disabilities, and so we would not be permitted. It would be a conflict of interest for us to represent parents in guardianship proceedings,” Crippes said. 

His organization and the ACLU of Utah sued the state last year over a new state law on guardianship.

They argued the changes make it too easy for those with intellectual disabilities to have their rights turned over to guardians who could cut them off from seeing friends and family, violating federal antidiscrimination law.  

The groups noted the law would take away a person’s right to an attorney if their sibling, parent or grandparent is the one seeking guardianship – a change they said would make the court process unfair, but that families said could help them try to protect their loved ones.

Many who advocated for the 2025 law saw the center’s opposition as an attack on their families.

“You would presume that they are here to help those with disabilities,” said Lisa Thornton, a guardianship attorney who said her daughter has a significant intellectual disability. “But their pattern of selective representation and repeated advocacy and litigation harming those with severe intellectual disabilities shows an agenda.”

But Crippes told Utah News Dispatch the goal is to safeguard the rights of people with disabilities. 

“Even if their parents disagree with us, our position would be, ultimately we have to represent the best interest of these individuals,” Crippes said. 

He said the center is not “anti-family.” It routinely works with clients and their parents and has advocated for the state to provide more help to those filing for guardianship, Crippes said.  

This year’s proposal is a resolution rather than a bill, expressing an opinion from lawmakers but without the force of law. A spokesperson for Gov. Spencer Cox did not respond to a request for comment Thursday about whether he’s in agreement.

Ultimately, the decision is with the federal government, and a change requires good cause — or a legally justifiable reason — Crippes said. It’s not clear which agency would take over if his were to lose its designation. 

The Senate panel advanced the measure Wednesday in a 7-2 vote. It awaits approval from the full Senate. 

Read the full article here

Arizona lawmakers keep Division of Developmental Disabilities afloat — for now   

By Camryn Sanchez, KJZZ Phoenix, January 30, 2026

State lawmakers this week gave the Department of Economic Security the go-ahead to shift $3.3 million in agency funds in order to keep services for Arizonans with developmental disabilities afloat — at least for another month.

It’s the second year in a row that the Division of Developmental Disabilities faces a funding crisis.

Even with the short-term fix, the division still needs another $138 million to cover expenses through the end of the fiscal year.

Rep. David Livingston (R-Peoria) said that level of spending is unsustainable.

“We want to help these kids, but we can't just be spending $100 and $200 million more every year unlimited. So it has to be a better teamwork with the governor and us and the DD community in finding results,” Livingston said.

As a condition of granting DDD the funding transfer on Thursday, the legislators attached some conditions. They’re requiring DES to send formal letters to lawmakers with their supplemental funding requests for this year, and a monthly breakdown of the state’s DDD populations by diagnosis.

They also asked the department to review a recent audit of Minnesota’s Department of Human Services and report back to the state’s Joint Legislative Budget Committee on whether any of the issues found in Minnesota are unaddressed in Arizona’s program.

Last year, lawmakers did not pass supplemental funding for the DDD program until just days before it was set to run out of money, causing panic from the community relying on those services.

Continued

Arizona: Class-action lawsuit targets AHCCCS over autism coverage cuts

By Brian Petersheim, Jr. , AZ Family, February 6, 2026

 Multiple families are taking part in a class action lawsuit against Arizona’s Medicaid program in connection with coverage cuts impacting children with autism.

The lawsuit, filed in Maricopa County Superior Court, alleges the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) did not require insurers to maintain an adequate network of providers for children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.

The suit asks the court for an immediate injunction to suspend or reverse AHCCCS’ approval of the insurers’ decisions to eliminate in-network ABA coverage, which could impact as many as 1,000 Arizona children.

It comes after AHCCCS’ recent approval of insurer decisions to end in-network coverage for the state’s two largest applied behavior analysis providers.

It’s a move that could force families to find new in-network providers or pay out of pocket for treatment.

One of the 11 plaintiffs, Melissa Fernandez, said doctors diagnosed her son, Colin, with severe, level three autism spectrum disorder when he was two years old.

Now, Colin, aged five, has made significant progress with ABA therapy.

Fernandez, covered under Mercy Care, said she fears her son could lose that progress after the insurer announced last year that it would no longer cover the same providers.

“Our son, Colin, starts clapping and giggling as soon as we pull into our therapy center each morning,” Melissa said. “It was a complete slap in the face to receive the cancellation notice from Mercy Care, indicating it would no longer cover the care our son receives with Action Behavior Centers.

“There are so many Arizona families being hurt by these insurers and AHCCCS, and kids with special needs are paying the steepest price,” she said.

The plaintiffs’ attorney, Tim Nelson, said waiting lists for autism providers already run long, and families would struggle if they are forced to find other in-network providers.

“Now, AHCCCS has let these companies cut their already inadequate networks in half. This is illegal and, if not stopped, the results will be heartbreaking for hundreds of Arizona children and families,” Nelson said in a written statement.

The class action lawsuit has five counts against AHCCCS, including violations of the federal Medicaid Act and its requirements that the State ensure access to care for eligible patients, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Developmental Disabilities Act, the Arizonans with Disabilities Act and the Arizona Constitution.

Read the article here

Hundreds of Idahoans speak out against Medicaid cuts at the statehouse Wednesday night

By Aspen Shumpert, KREM 2 News, February 4, 2026

More than 500 people filled the Lincoln Auditorium and three overflow rooms at the Idaho Statehouse on Wednesday evening to testify against proposed cuts to Medicaid, warning that reductions to the program would strip away services that keep some of the state's most vulnerable residents alive.

"I am terrified," said Michelle Lance, a speech therapist who attended the forum, told KTVB. 

Democratic lawmakers organized the unofficial hearing after the Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee, which oversees the state budget, declined to take public testimony on the proposed cuts. Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow and House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel co-chaired the forum.

"Unfortunately, the committee would not open, and so we just thought it was so important to invite people here to share," Wintrow said.

JFAC is the only state committee that does not take public comments at hearings. 

Gov. Brad Little's budget proposal calls for $45 million in Medicaid cuts from the state's general fund. Among the options the governor has put forward that lawmakers will need to decide on are: " "An additional reduction to hospital rates; an additional reduction to residential habilitation rates; removal of administrative costs for Managed Care contracts; removal of the pharmacy benefit for non-expansion adults on Medicaid; removal of adult dental services; removal of home and community based services; removal of physical, occupational, and speech therapy services; removal of case management support; removal of hospice services; removal of adult prosthetics and orthotics; removal of adult in-home nursing services; removal of adult chiropractic services; removal of adult audiology services; or removal of adult vision services," according to the Governor's budget book. 

Idaho faces an estimated $40 million budget shortfall this fiscal year and critics point to last year's historic tax cuts as a cut to revenue that has put Idaho in a position to have to cut Medicaid. 

JFAC co-chair Rep. Josh Tanner, R-Eagle, has said the governor's proposed $45 million in Medicaid cuts may not go far enough, citing Medicaid spending growth of $111 million in the current fiscal year and $127 million projected for next year.

But on Wednesday, speaker after speaker argued the cuts would devastate their families.

"They're tired of having to beg for the bare minimum," said Megan C. of Meridian, whose 9-year-old daughter Emma has Rett syndrome and relies on caregivers for every aspect of daily life.

Taylor M., a Boise attorney who has represented thousands of disabled Idahoans over the past 20 years, pushed back on how Medicaid is characterized in the budget debate.

"Let's not perpetuate the myth that Medicaid is a handout," she said. "Medicaid is a tool. It's a vehicle to ensure that Idaho workers can continue to work and contribute to our tax revenue."

For some families, the stakes are life and death.

Jim Baugh of Boise, a retired disability rights attorney, told the forum that his 53-year-old son Gabriel is paralyzed from the neck down, cannot breathe without a ventilator, eats through a gastric tube and requires around-the-clock care. Medicaid-funded home and community-based services allow the family to care for him at home.

"It would take less than 24 hours for him to be in a crisis that would probably not result in his surviving," Baugh said.

Ned Folks of Boise testified about his daughter Eva, who has received supported living and residential habilitation services for the past 18 years. She requires 24-hour direct care for every aspect of her life and lives in a rented house with a roommate, with support from a rehab agency funded by Medicaid reimbursement rates.

"She would decline rapidly, and she would die in short order, without this day-to-day care," Folks said.

Sarah Cox of Boise, whose older brother Justin has Down syndrome and turns 55 next week, said the proposed cuts are "literally keeping me and my family awake at night."

"I hate that this discussion is reducing him to a number in the state's budget. He's so much more than that," Cox said.

Samantha Robles of Boise, whose 5-year-old daughter Stella has autism, questioned why the state's reserves are not being used to avoid cuts. She urged lawmakers to use the state's rainy-day fund instead of cutting vital services to Idahoans. 

"Why does my daughter have to pay the price because the budget couldn't be balanced appropriately?" Robles said.

Read the full article here

Maryland: Services, workers at risk from second year of developmental disabilities budget cuts

Baltimore County resident Tracie Feron is the mother of 30-year-old Connor Feron, who has autism and other medical conditions that require round-the-clock care.

She said residential facilities in the area have rejected Connor, because they cannot provide the care he needs. He uses a Medicaid waiver that lets him and his family hire support personnel instead to assist him in his home.

But a recent proposal to cut funding from the state agency that oversees Conner’s services may put those supports at risk. Gov. Wes Moore’s fiscal 2027 budget proposal, released this month, calls for $150 million in “cost containment” measures in the budget for the Developmental Disabilities Administration.

Reductions in spending on provider wages is just one of the proposed cuts. Feron and her son both worry about what will happen if wages drop too low to attract qualified candidates.

“It takes a village to support him,” she said. “What happens when that village is gone?”

It’s a concern shared by thousands of people with developmental disabilities and their families as they eye the DDA cuts in Moore’s budget. The administration includes a series of “cost containment” measures it says are needed to help curtail what officials call “unsustainable” spending from the agency.

The DDA administers Medicaid waivers that let Marylanders with developmental disabilities receive a wide variety of services, from live-in caregiver support to transportation, respite care, employment services and more.

Through reductions in spending on wages for specific service personnel and a cap on how much the state will provide for each personal budget, the governor hopes to reduce $150 million in state spending from the DDA.

It’s the second year state officials have looked at cuts to the DDA for potential savings.

Last year, Moore’s initial budget slashed DDA funding as the state looked to close a $3 billion budget gap, prompting an outcry from advocates. Hundreds of people with developmental disabilities, their families and caretakers rallied in Annapolis on a cold January evening, with additional advocacy efforts throughout the session.

After significant discussion, lawmakers and the administration restored much of the proposed reduction – though there was still a $164 million cut to the agency for fiscal 2026.

Now, the administration is looking to tap DDA funds again.

Read the full article here

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