September 5, 2025

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.

Save The Date!

VOR's September Networking Meeting

Monday, September 29, 2025

4 pm ET / 3 pm CT / 2 pm MT / 1 pm PT

On Zoom

Come join us for a lively discussion of matters that affect your family and your family members with I/DD and autism.

Suggested topics include:

• The importance of hospitals for people with I/DD and autism, whether they live at home, in group homes, or in an ICF
• What to anticipate before the real cuts to Medicaid take effect
• The future of the DD System, and possible changes that will affect the ACL and state Protection and Advocacy agencies

Stay tuned for more information!

Medicaid cuts could threaten care for North Carolinians with severe disabilities

Families and providers warn that reductions created by the recent congressional budget may destabilize group homes and strain already fragile support systems.  

By Jaymie Baxley, NC Health News, September 5, 2025

Jennifer Shigley can’t speak or walk without assistance.

The 49-year-old also cannot feed or bathe herself. Her father, a retired child psychologist, described her as having the mental capacity of a toddler.

“She requires total care,” Hal Shigley said. “Thank goodness she is in a facility where she’s taken good care of.”

For eight years, Jennifer has lived at a group home operated by the Raleigh nonprofit TLC — formerly known as the Tammy Lynn Center — for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Like other residents of the facility, her around-the-clock care is made possible by North Carolina’s Medicaid program.

“It’s very expensive to care for people like Jennifer and people who have similar disabilities,” said Hal Shigley, who estimated that the government-funded health insurance program pays “somewhere in the neighborhood” of $150,000 a year for his daughter to stay at TLC.

Jennifer’s benefits shouldn’t be affected by looming federal cuts to Medicaid because she’s in a special coverage category for people with profound intellectual and developmental disabilities. 

But advocates are warning that the Trump administration’s proposals to slash Medicaid — a program where states and the federal government each shoulder part of the costs — by up to $2.3 trillion over the next decade could end up jeopardizing the kind of care she receives.

Strain on the system

Sarah Crawford, a Democratic member of the N.C. House of Representatives, has a stake in the issue: She’s CEO of TLC.

Crawford said the 30 adults who live at the organization’s three group homes for people with “severe and profound needs” require 24-hour personal care, with “99 percent of their medical treatment” provided on site. The average annual cost of that care, she said, is about $230,000 per person.

Without Medicaid, Crawford said it would be “nearly impossible for the majority of families to pick up the tab.”

“These are families that rely on TLC,” she said. “There are folks that have lived with us for 30 years. This is their home. This is where they live and live life to the fullest.”

The Trump administration has not proposed eliminating or limiting Medicaid benefits for participants with intellectual or developmental disabilities. People with disabilities are among the few groups exempt from a new rule, set to take effect in December 2026, that requires enrollees to prove they are working, attending school or volunteering for at least 80 hours a month.

But Crawford fears the work requirement and other sweeping changes laid out in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed into law on July 4 will nonetheless have downstream implications for organizations like TLC.

Jay Ludlam, head of Medicaid for North Carolina, has said that implementing the work requirement will force the state to develop a costly, complex new platform to check beneficiaries’ employment status.

The OBBBA does not provide the state with any federal funding to create that platform. In fact, it limits North Carolina’s ability to offset the work requirement’s cost because the new law reduces the amount of taxes the state can impose on providers. 

North Carolina currently collects a 6 percent tax on providers’ net revenue from patients. The new law lowers the rate to 3.5 percent. Having that lower tax rate means that the state cannot draw down as much federal matching money for Medicaid.

Medicaid is such a large program that even a change of 1 percent can end up equating to hundreds of millions of dollars. Ludlam said the provider tax rate cap will likely result in billions of dollars in lost funding for the state.

Crawford said those reductions could leave facilities like TLC struggling to stretch already thin resources. “If we lose funding, it will be harder for us to provide that care because we will have to do the same amount with less,” she said.

Corye Dunn, director of public policy for Disability Rights North Carolina, said it would be a mistake to assume the cuts won’t touch people with disabilities just because their coverage isn’t in the crosshairs.

“There is no way to make the massive cuts the federal government has made without hurting people with disabilities,” Dunn said. “We are disproportionately reliant on Medicaid, even when we have private insurance because so many of the services people with disabilities need are not covered, traditionally, with private insurance.”

She worries that the cuts will result in rate reductions that would worsen North Carolina’s shortage of direct support professionals — the workers who feed, bathe and help residents with daily needs. Many already earn poverty-level wages, and turnover is rampant.

“Anytime there’s a threat to rates, it’s really a threat to staff salaries,” Dunn said. “People leave the field if they can’t make enough money to live. You wind up with a less stable and overall lower-quality pool of staff available to people with disabilities when you threaten rates. That’s just as true in a group home as it is in an intermediate care facility.”

Beyond staffing, Dunn said cuts could ripple across every part of a facility’s operations, from food budgets to building upkeep. 

“Rates affect everything,” she said. “They affect how much we can staff, the quality of food that is served, the health and safety. There is not a single thing that rates don’t impact, and we do not yet know how this will affect rates.”

Read the full article here

SCOOP: House GOP eyes more Medicaid reforms in second budget reconciliation bill

Sources tell Fox News that early talks on Medicaid reform are happening in coming days

By Elizabeth Elkind, Fox News, September 3, 2025

The House Budget Committee has begun having early discussions on a second Republican megabill, eyeing more potential reforms to Medicaid, sources told Fox News Digital.

Republicans on the panel are expected to hold closed-door talks in the coming days, as lawmakers return from the August recess, three people familiar with the matter said. 

Two sources familiar with discussions said the committee has begun early talk on mapping out further reforms to Medicaid, including revisiting and modifying measures that did not make the Senate's final version of the bill. 

"I think you can kind of put this puzzle together, but I think we were talking about things that last time didn't go through," one person said.

Continued

Virginia - Emotions run high as state nears deadline for recommended closure of Dinwiddie hospital (Hiram W. Davis Medical Center)

Bhy Bill Atkinson, Petersburg Progress-Index, September 5, 2025

While the state still insists that closure is the only viable option for an antiquated Virginia-run hospital for mentally and developmentally disabled patients, family members of those patients sent a clear message that Hiram W. Davis Medical Center will not go down without a fight. 

In public testimonies Sept. 4 that ran the gamut from tears to anger, caregivers for some of the patients remaining at the Dinwiddie County facility pleaded with Department of Behavioral Health & Developmental Services [DBHDS] officials at a meeting in Petersburg to actively seek options aside from closing the hospital. DBHDS announced last year that the 50-year-old facility that shares a campus with Central State Hospital would close its doors by 2027, claiming the center and its systems are on their last legs to the point that it would be more cost-effective to transfer patients and staff, and tear the building down. 

According to DBHDS data, it would cost $285.3 million over a six-year period to retain the medical center and either replace or renovate it. Reassigning patients and staff would cost $119 million over that same period, a savings of almost $170 million that DBHDS said “could be reinvested” into the community and ensure that the former patients and their families get top-shelf services. 

Some of the services will be moved into the new CSH facility slated to open in 2027. Others will be transferred into either private care or the Southeastern Virginia Training Center [SEVTC], an intermediate-care, state-run facility in Chesapeake that is being renovated to accommodate transfers from Davis Medical Center. Those renovations are scheduled to be completed in May 2026.

‘Alive because of Hiram Davis’ 

At the session inside the Petersburg Public Library, three parents of Davis Medical Center patients got their last opportunities to make their cases for the hospital to remain open. Reasons ran from convenience of the location to concern over the care their children would get in Chesapeake – and one very angry claim that the closure is politically driven. 

Nancy Crone has a 48-year-old son in Davis Medical whose vast physical and mental disabilities have resulted in him having the developmental capacity of a three-month-old infant. Crone said the Davis staff has provided him with the medical attention that she worries he would not get if he were to go somewhere else. 

“They were able to care for him at Hiram Davis without having to be transported numerous times,” Crone said. In the 36 years he has been there, her son has never needed any wound treatment, “which makes a statement for his care,” she noted. 

Crone said his medical needs have taken on a path that ultimately brought him to Dinwiddie County “because of closures” at the other places where he was treated. 

“It’s time that these fragile clients stay at Hiram Davis for the necessary services that are provided,” she concluded. “The proximity to my home for appointments and meetings and to visit my son ... he’s alive because of Hiram Davis.” 

Another caregiver, Martha Bryant, must travel from her home in Amherst County to Dinwiddie to see her son. Bryant said she passes the former location where he stayed until that closed, and moving him another 100 miles east to Chesapeake makes an already stressful trip more time-consuming for someone who already has lost one son. 

"Southeastern has never done skilled care before,” Bryant said. “The building layout, the onsite services are not comparable to Hiram Davis, not close to home. I’m trying to avoid the death of another son.” 

She closed by saying that while the medical center’s closing is all but certain, she will continue “to speak truth” to state lawmakers in persuading them to keep it open. 

One parent: 'Shame!'

Between the testimonies of Crone and Bryant, Atul Gupta used his time at the microphone to blast the closing proposal as strictly political. He claimed that the subgroups assigned to the study all recommended that Hiram Davis stay open. 

“Guess what the commissioner recommends?” Gupta said, referring to DBHDS commissioner Nelson Smith, who was there. “To close it.” 

Smith was appointed to the role by Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who will leave office next January. Gupta accused Smith of arrogance for not listening to the recommendations about keeping it open. 

"One of his bureaucrats is making you jobless and my daughter homeless,” he said. “Shame!” 

Read the full article here

Trump’s new law will limit payments to hospitals that treat low-income patients

Critics warn the change to Medicaid will be particularly harmful to rural hospitals struggling to stay afloat

By Shalina Chatlani, Stateline, September 5, 2025

President Donald Trump’s new tax and spending law will likely force more than half the states to reduce payments to doctors and hospitals that treat Medicaid patients, a change critics warn will be particularly harmful to rural hospitals struggling to stay afloat.

Medicaid, the joint state-federal health insurance program for low-income people, reimburses doctors, hospitals and nursing facilities for treating enrollees. But in many cases, the program doesn’t fully cover the cost of care, straining providers that serve a large share of Medicaid patients.

To help providers cover losses and continue to serve poorer populations, the federal government allows the 41 states, plus the District of Columbia, that have contracted with Medicaid managed care organizations (MCOs) to run their Medicaid programs to direct them to pay providers more — in some cases, as much as commercial plans.

Ultimately, taxpayers cover the costs of these so-called state directed payments — and those costs are growing. As of August 2024, the higher payments were projected to add $110.2 billion per year to Medicaid spending, nearly 60% more than the previous year’s projection.

That higher spending attracted the attention of conservatives on Capitol Hill.

Beginning in 2028, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will cap the payments, forcing state Medicaid programs to reduce reimbursement rates by 10 percentage points each year until they reach either 100% or 110% of what Medicare pays. States that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act would be capped at the lower rate.

The new law will reduce Medicaid spending by $149 billion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and reduce Medicaid provider payments in as many as 31 states, according to KFF, a health policy research group. A separate analysis by The Commonwealth Fund, another research group, found that Medicaid payments to hospitals would drop by at least 20% in 19 of the 25 states that had publicly available data.

Critics say the change could be disastrous for hospitals, many of them in rural areas, that see a large share of Medicaid patients.

Supporters of the change say the extra payments inflate federal spending on the Medicaid program, giving hospitals “windfall profits.”

“Not only do these programs sidestep the truly needy on Medicaid and favor special interests instead, but all this is financed by growing the federal debt, leading to inflation and higher interest rates for all Americans,” the Paragon Health Institute, a conservative think tank that helped draft the bill, stated in a policy brief.

Hospital leaders dispute that. Earlier this year, the American Hospital Association asserted that without the extra payments, Medicaid managed care organizations in 2023 only covered about two-thirds of the actual cost of care.

Cindy Samuelson, senior vice president of the Kansas Hospital Association, said the additional payments are especially critical in a rural state such as Kansas, where some researchers have found that 87% of rural hospitals are in the red. Kansas is one of 10 states that did not expand Medicaid, and like other nonexpansion states, it will have to begin reducing direct payments to 110% of what Medicare pays starting in 2028.

“Over time, commercial payers are paying less and less,” Samuelson said. “Many hospitals in our state are at risk of closure.”

Samuelson said that in rural areas, health care providers see fewer patients, which makes it hard to spread out the cost of care and make up for losses that come from serving underinsured, Medicaid and Medicare patients. One result is that rural hospitals are trimming services. A report published this year by Chartis, a health care consulting firm, found that between 2011 and 2023, nearly 300 rural hospitals across the country stopped offering obstetrics care, and 424 rural hospitals ceased chemotherapy services.

In Hutchinson, Kansas, Benjamin Anderson, CEO of the rural and community-owned Hutchinson Regional Health System, said his hospital barely broke even this year, and lower Medicaid payments will take a toll. The 190-bed hospital serves more than 65,000 people in the central Kansas region.

“We are closely managing our workforce expenses. We’re going to be relying more heavily on philanthropy,” Anderson said, adding that the hospital wouldn’t lay off staff but would reduce the number of workers by not filling open positions.

He said his hospital has some cash reserves that should enable it to keep going, but that many other rural hospitals lack such a cushion.

“When we think about the cuts to Medicaid, it isn’t simply about cutting services to the poor. It’s threatening services to everyone, because in a rural community, we all get care in the same place,” he said. “If we cut out the safety net that’s sustaining these hospitals, everyone’s health care is threatened.”

Read the full article here

Kentucky - Make no mistake, Big Beautiful Bill weakens Medicaid 

By Emily Beauregard and Dustin Pugel, the Kentucky Lantern via News from the States, Sept. 3, 2025

Whether or not you’ve ever needed it, Medicaid forms the bedrock of Kentucky’s entire health care system, making coverage more affordable and accessible for all of us.  As our single largest source of federal funding, it also sustains thousands of jobs, keeps rural hospitals and clinics open, and injects billions into our local economies each year. 

Almost 1.5 million Kentuckians count on this coverage, from our youngest, to our oldest, and everyone in between, including working families, people with disabilities, and anyone who finds themselves in need of costly or long-term care they couldn’t otherwise afford.

Kentucky’s population is rapidly aging, which means more of us are discovering that it’s often Medicaid (not Medicare) that’s there when we need help with nursing care, home health or assisted living. As we weather the aging boom, Medicaid’s critical significance in our lives will only grow. 

Claiming to safeguard the future of the program, Congress has pushed through the largest cuts in Medicaid’s history. These “big, beautiful” cuts, rushed in over a few short weeks this summer, exceed the scale of all previous reductions combined. It has left many wondering how exactly the program is being protected.

The largest cuts from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) come from terminating coverage for people who can’t meet new work reporting requirements. Supporters of the change have worked hard to sell a particular stereotype, painting pictures of young men somehow living high off their health insurance.

In reality, the “able-bodied adults without dependents” these requirements target are most likely to be middle-aged women with a high school degree or less, who have caregiving responsibilities at home. Many are caring for a parent, sibling or spouse who may not legally count as a dependent, but whose needs keep them from fully participating in the workforce. In Kentucky, nearly 1 in 5 Medicaid enrollees who aren’t working full-time are doing exactly that: providing essential care to their loved ones.

These women aren’t gaming the system, they’re sustaining it. It is their often unrecognized and unpaid labor that saves millions in long-term care costs, yet the Big Beautiful Bill threatens to punish them for not fitting narrow reporting requirements.

But the new hurdles won’t stop there. They pile on paperwork, reporting deadlines, and exemption applications that overwhelm the very people Medicaid is meant to help. Working parents, gig workers, farmers and Kentuckians facing barriers like unreliable transportation, fluctuating hours or limited internet access will struggle to keep up.

The result? Coverage losses. These new requirements won’t boost employment, but they will double our rate of uninsured, strain our hospitals with uncompensated care and push more families into medical debt.

If lawmakers truly wanted to “save” Medicaid, they have options. Too many Kentuckians face a benefit cliff when increased earnings put them over the eligibility limit for Medicaid but aren’t enough to cover the cost of commercial insurance. Providers like dentists are woefully underpaid through base reimbursements. Life-changing medications are currently excluded from coverage. And quality care isn’t incentivized the way it should be.

Congress could have tackled any of these issues. Instead, the Big Beautiful Bill weakens Medicaid across the board, straining our entire health care infrastructure, reducing access and driving up costs for everyone. The truth is, Medicaid didn’t need saving. But it does now.

Read the full editorial here

Mehmet Oz Address Medicaid Cuts From Trump's Big Beautiful Bill

By Hugh Cameron, Newsweek, August 31, 2025

Mehmet Oz, administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, has responded to fears over the future of its programs following the passage of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Why It Matters

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the tax package signed into law by President Donald Trump on July 4 will cut Medicaid funding by more than $900 billion over the next decade. These reductions and changes to the programs' funding structures have aroused fears that millions could lose coverage while others see their access to health care significantly impacted.

However, the administration has emphasized its commitment to protecting Medicaid for the most vulnerable sectors of society, and maintained that it can secure sufficient funding through work requirements and by addressing out fraud, waste and abuse within the programs.

What To Know

During an interview with Fox News on Saturday, host Lara Trump asked Oz to address Americans with concerns that provisions in the bill could result in many losing access to health care.

"It is tough to take care of people who are vulnerable, but every great society does it and we're great people who are going to do that," Oz said. "That is the focus and somehow the system slipped—through drift or maybe by design—it became a very different program over the last several years."

During the interview on Saturday, Oz said he wanted to "put the clock" back on Medicaid, to the pre-COVID period, when it was "viable. When it was working."

As well as remedying state-directed payments—which he called "legalized money laundering"—Oz said that the issue of "able-bodied people being on Medicaid" was behind a push for work requirements. The 1,200-page budget package includes a mandate that recipients participate in work-related activities for 80 hours per month or study part-time unless granted an exemption.

Experts who spoke to Newsweek previously warned that this could push millions of legitimate recipients off Medicaid, citing evidence of confusion over reporting requirements and other administrative challenges.

Continued

New Medicaid Enrollment Barriers and Lessons From Unwinding

By Adrianna McIntyre, PhD; Jinwoo Kim, MPH; Benjamin D. Sommers, MD, PhD

Journal of the American Medical Association, Seprember 4, 2025

Policy debates regarding Medicaid rarely focus on the technicalities of how people get coverage and stay enrolled. Yet, these administrative processes are central to recent changes to Medicaid under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) and, in fact, underpin the expected coverage losses responsible for the law’s projected savings.

The unwinding of the Medicaid continuous coverage provision can inform expectations in this context. This pandemic-era provision offered states additional federal Medicaid funding between March 2020 and March 2023 that was conditional on the requirement of not disenrolling beneficiaries because of changes in income or other circumstances. The continuous coverage provision caused historic growth in Medicaid enrollment, but, after the policy sunset, states had to redetermine eligibility for all enrollees.

Approximately 25 million people lost Medicaid benefits during this redetermination process.

With millions projected to lose coverage under the OBBBA, mostly from changes in Medicaid policies, unpacking the findings from the unwinding of the Medicaid continuous coverage provision is timely. Two key lessons emerge: varying state policy environments and data systems can lead to widely divergent outcomes, and excessive red tape can lead to coverage losses even among those who remain eligible for Medicaid.

 A Recipe for Red Tape and Coverage Loss

The OBBBA adds a mandatory work requirement for beneficiaries and applicants between the ages of 19 and 64 years enrolled through the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) Medicaid expansion. Adults must work at least 80 hours per month or qualify for an exemption to enroll in Medicaid beginning in January 2027. The law also changes the frequency of eligibility checks for beneficiaries of Medicaid expansion; beginning in 2027, these eligibility verifications, including work requirement compliance, will happen every 6 months instead of annually (and states can choose to impose work requirement checks more frequently). The OBBBA also rescinds regulations from 2024 that would have streamlined Medicaid enrollment. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the law will lead to a reduction of roughly 10 million people from Medicaid per year by 2030, and 7.6 million are expected to become uninsured.

Supporters of the OBBBA claim Medicaid coverage losses only reflect reductions in “waste, fraud, and abuse,” but research suggests many eligible recipients will lose coverage because of administrative red tape. Under Arkansas’ 2018 Medicaid work requirement, research found large coverage losses even though more than 95% of beneficiaries appeared to still be eligible, and there was no discernible change in employment among low-income adults subject to the policy.

On a national scale, many beneficiaries who are working will lose coverage if state Medicaid programs are unaware of their work or exemption status unless the beneficiaries submit documentation. As was seen during unwinding, state data sources on employment are often incomplete, and people often fall through the cracks. State wage databases do not capture all forms of employment (eg, self-employment or gig jobs), may not capture sufficient information to determine compliance, and are often several months out of date. Commercial databases can be expensive and have other limitations; a 2016 government report found that a common database used by states to assess work requirements in SNAP only captures 35% to 40% of the full working population; the share could be less for low-income workers who are more likely to have unstable employment or gig jobs.

Proponents of work requirements argue that they will preserve Medicaid for its originally intended beneficiaries, such as pregnant individuals and people with disabilities. This premise ignores that, under the ACA, Congress explicitly intended Medicaid to be expanded to a broader segment of the US population, which is a policy that is extremely popular among both Democratic and Republican voters. But even at face value, it is simply untrue that work requirements and other aspects of the OBBBA will not affect coverage for members of these groups.

Potential Outcomes Worse Under the OBBBA Than Under the Unwinding

The nation’s experience with unwinding indicates the potential for widespread Medicaid coverage losses under the OBBBA. However, there are several reasons to conclude that this law will be more disruptive and harmful to coverage than the unwinding was.

First, research shows that the majority of the people whose coverage was terminated during unwinding ended up with other coverage, commonly because they returned to work and gained employer-sponsored health insurance coverage as the pandemic subsided, or became eligible for ACA Marketplace coverage. This contrasts with the effects of previous work requirements that led to an increase in the rate of uninsured individuals, and the experience in states that currently have low participation rates in Medicaid, which leaves millions of eligible individuals uninsured.

Second, unwinding occurred after 3 years of preparation by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid

Services (CMS) to maximize coverage protection and give states flexibility to promote coverage retention. Meanwhile, the OBBBA implements work requirements on a more aggressive timetable (18 months). Ideally, the CMS will provide states with significant latitude to reduce administrative burdens on applicants and enrollees. Even though the OBBBA offers states modest grants to update data systems (totaling $200 million nationally), this amount compares unfavorably with the roughly $50 million Georgia spent on its work requirement administration program.

In addition, these changes will occur alongside significant Medicaid funding cuts through the OBBBA’s limits on certain financing strategies such as provider taxes. The combination of increased administrative barriers and reduced state funding is likely to be a toxic brew.

Read the full article here

9 questions that could save your loved one from neglect

By Ande Richards, NJ Advance Media, September 4, 2025

For families of people with intellectual or developmental disabilities (I/DD), placing their trust in strangers to provide daily care — often for nonverbal or highly vulnerable loved ones — is a daunting but necessary reality, experts said.

“Individuals with I/DD deserve opportunities to be among their peers —whether in a day program setting or by experiencing the independence of living on their own,” said Deena King, the intake manager at New Concepts for Living in Paramus.

King said trusting an agency to care for a family member is incredibly difficult, especially given the stories of abuse and neglect involving individuals who too often lack the ability or capacity to advocate for themselves.

To help caregivers navigate the uncertainty of choosing a placement for an individual with I/DD, King created a list of the most commonly raised concerns, including the key factors caregivers should consider when making this important decision.

Are cameras available to monitor staff and clients?

Cameras serve multiple purposes, including staff training, accountability, facilitating investigations, and most importantly, helping to prevent abuse or neglect.

While Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and many provider agencies argue that surveillance constitutes a “human rights violation,” most caregivers recognize the vulnerability of their loved ones and find reassurance in the presence of cameras.

What is the ratio of staff to clients?

The DDD evaluates homes and recommends staffing levels based on evacuation needs. Some provider agencies also consider the specific needs of the individuals living in the facility, including required behavior supports. In contrast, Day Programs are only required to meet minimal staffing and support standards set by the provider.

Is there a high staff turnover rate?

High staff turnover disrupts routines, making clients feel unsafe and anxious and prevents the development of trusting, long-term relationships.

New or temporary staff may lack the necessary knowledge to provide personalized care, resulting in mistakes and inconsistencies.

How many clients live in a home?

Most homes licensed by DDD typically have four to six bedrooms, with most offering single-occupancy rooms. Some homes are co-ed, while others are single sex. It’s important to know what matters most to you and what’s best for your loved one.

Does the facility have a behavioral therapist and nurses on staff?

For individuals with medical needs or those who require support for conditions such as obsessive-compulsive disorder, anxiety, noncompliance, aggression, or other behaviors commonly associated with various diagnoses, access to on-site nursing and a behavioral therapist is essential.

A behavioral therapist assesses and addresses challenging behaviors by creating and implementing personalized support plans. By monitoring progress and adjusting plans as needed, they help enhance the individual’s well-being and quality of life.

How does the organization screen and train its staff?

Find out whether staff undergo comprehensive background checks before being hired. After hiring, ask if they are required to complete specific training. Also, inquire about the detailed — and ideally ongoing —training provided to address each individual’s needs, as well as best practices in areas such as medication management, CPR, vehicle operation, and crisis management.

Read the full article here

Personal Stories

VOR is about families. Families like yours. Families like mine. Every family's story is unique. And every one of our families have shared paths, hopes, challenges, moments of doubt and moments of joy.

Personal stories are the lifeblood of advocacy.

We would like to invite our readers to share their stories with us, that we may share them with our community.

Many of our Board members and long-time members have shared their stories several times over the years. We would like to hear from people who haven't spoken. In the next few months, we hope to share your stories in different formats, from our print newsletter The VOR Voice to our annual fundraising appeals.

Please share your story with us, at info@vor.net or at hdwyervor@gmail.com

VOR Podcasts!

Episode 3 - Part 2

Joanne St. Amand

"What Happened When NJ Closed

Two of its State-Operated

Intermediate Care Facilities"

Click here to view it on YouTube

VOR's Casey Henry and Brenna Redfearn continue their new series!

Click here for Episode 1

Click here for Episode 2

Click here for Episode 3 - Part 1

More podcasts coming soon!

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.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.