Don’t Underestimate the Catastrophic Impact That the Trump Administration’s Policies Will Have on People With Disabilities
On Tuesday, Republican Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, Trump’s nominee for secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, to testify before the Senate Finance Committee. During his confirmation hearing, he will almost certainly be grilled about the radical changes to our health care infrastructure that he and Trump intend to implement, but senators should make it a point to dig deep into how the administration’s proposals will endanger the lives of people with disabilities.
We already know that Price supports repeal of the Affordable Care Act, a law that includes numerous protections for people with disabilities. For example, the ACA ensures insurance coverage for people with pre-existing conditions — such as people with disabilities — and makes certain that individuals with disabilities are not priced out of coverage or denied health care after pricey hospital stays.
What many people don’t yet know is that Price, House Speaker Paul Ryan, and Trump have proposed making significant changes to Medicaid, the health insurance program that covers low-income people, including those with disabilities. These changes are not to make the program more efficient. Medicaid is significantly more efficient than private insurance; these changes are to finance tax cuts. The plan is to slowly reduce the dollars available, so that at the end of ten years, $1 trillion will have been cut from healthcare for poor people and people with disabilities.
Not surprisingly, these cuts would be devastating. What is more, the changes in how the system is run would risk the fundamental right to freedom for people with significant disabilities.
The Trump administration has a long road to walk before it can repair its damaged reputation within the disability community.
Medicaid is the primary source of funding for the services that allow people with disabilities to live in their own homes and make their own choices about daily life, instead of being warehoused in institutions. Medicaid allows people who would otherwise languish in nursing homes and psychiatric hospitals to move to a community where they can work, play, and live, integrated with the rest of the society.
Elizabeth Grigsby, who has cerebral palsy, can tell you what it was like to live in an institution. She was in a board and care home for six months that was run like a nursing home. “Someone else decided when I would get up in the morning,” she said, “what I would have for breakfast, if I got to go outside that day, whether I could apply for a job, what and when I would eat dinner, and what I got to watch on television at the end of the day.”
Ms. Grigsby now works three days a week as a consumer advocate with the Golden Gate Regional Center. “With services and supports, I am in control of my own life,” she said. “I direct my attendant as to what I will eat, where I will go, and what job I hold. That is autonomy. An institution is no better than a prison.”
In other words, Medicaid is the program that makes real the right that individuals have, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, to freedom. Medicaid is the program that makes real the right that individuals have under the ADA to integration – instead of segregation in institutions. And these rights were recognized and affirmed in 1999 by the Supreme Court in , one of the most important civil rights decisions for people with disabilities in our country’s history.
But Price and many other members of Congress want to turn back the clock and undo all of our hard-fought gains. They seek a radical restructuring of Medicaid that will allow them to significantly cut funding to the program. They turning the program into a “block grant” or by instituting a “per capita cap,” meaning that states would receive a fixed amount of dollars, and the federal government would no longer provide oversight or incentives. The federal oversight and incentive programs are what have reformed state systems to move from institutional care to community-based services. The result would be dangerously reduced benefits that support the autonomy of people with disabilities.
Every senator who will question Rep. Price at Tuesday’s confirmation hearing must fully explore his views and the administration’s plans to upend the Medicaid program. And they must make clear their opposition to any change in Medicaid’s financing that will degrade the health, welfare, and autonomy of people with disabilities.
The Trump administration has a long road to walk before it can repair its damaged reputation within the disability community. Supporting dangerous and ableist public that undermine Medicaid and threaten the civil rights of people with disabilities is a sharp move in the wrong direction.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
CaliforniaDec 2024
Disability Rights
Powers v. McDonoughPowers v. McDonough
Every night, thousands of veterans sleep without shelter on the streets of Los Angeles. Meanwhile, the Department of Veterans Affairs owns hundreds of acres of land in prime West Los Angeles—land directly adjacent to a VA medical facility that was once earmarked to house veterans, but today is instead home to private school sports fields and an oil well. In November 2022, a group of unhoused veterans and a non-profit organization filed suit alleging that the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) failed to provide adequate housing and health care to veterans with severe disabilities in Los Angeles. These failures have significantly undermined veterans’ abilities to access the benefits they are entitled to by law, leaving many stranded on the streets after serving our country. The veterans sued the VA under the Rehabilitation Act, a federal statute that prohibits federal agencies from discriminating against people with disabilities. As a remedy, the plaintiffs seek the construction of significant units of permanent supportive housing on the The VA argued that a provision of the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act (“VJRA”)— a federal statute that prohibits federal district courts from second-guessing VA’s individualized benefits determinations—bars federal district courts from hearing the veterans’ Rehabilitation Act claims. Should the court accept this position, it would deprive veterans of a meaningful opportunity to have their rights under the Rehabilitation Act and other generally applicable nondiscrimination statutes enforced. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals. -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Disability Rights
Criminal Law Reform
Lawsuit Challenging Armed Police Response to Mental Health Emergencies in Washington, D.C. to ProceedLawsuit Challenging Armed Police Response to Mental Health Emergencies in Washington, D.C. to Proceed
WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Washington, D.C. today rejected the District of Columbia’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of the District of Columbia, and the law firm Sheppard Mullin. The lawsuit contends that the District’s emergency response system discriminates against people with mental health disabilities by deploying armed police officers to address the vast majority of mental health crises while sending trained medical professionals to most other health emergencies. “This ruling moves us one step closer to bringing essential, life-saving emergency mental health care to D.C. communities. Qualified providers are best equipped to handle mental health emergencies with skills and compassion; police with a gun only serve to escalate, handcuff, and arrest,” said Ashika Verriest, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project. “Far too many people are harmed at the hands of police during a mental health crisis, or simply receive ineffective care. This must end.” The plaintiff in the case is Bread for the City, a D.C.-based nonprofit supporting underserved communities. The lawsuit contends that the District’s unequal response to mental health crises violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The ruling will move the case forward, allowing the ACLU to show in court that a fully functioning mental health crisis response system that sends a medical, rather than a law enforcement, response to most mental health crises is legally required. “Relying on mental health professionals, not armed police, to serve people experiencing mental health crises is not just logical, it’s required under the law. Today’s decision made clear that communities can’t single out mental health emergencies for worse services than other health emergencies,” said Michael Perloff, staff attorney with the ACLU of the District of Columbia. The ruling comes on the heels of a recommendation made in a similar case filed against Washington County, Oregon by the ACLU, the ACLU of Oregon, Disability Rights Oregon, and Sheppard Mullin. On August 30, 2024, a federal magistrate judge recognized that sending police, rather than health providers to a mental health crisis, may be discrimination against people with mental health disabilities in violation of federal law. The magistrate judge recommended that the case proceed. More details about the case are accessible here: /cases/bread-for-the-city-v-district-of-columbia -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Criminal Law Reform
+2 Issues
Judge Orders Supervision System in Washington, D.C. to Accommodate People with DisabilitiesJudge Orders Supervision System in Washington, D.C. to Accommodate People with Disabilities
WASHINGTON – A federal court granted a preliminary injunction yesterday in a case filed on behalf of people with disabilities on parole and supervised release in Washington, D.C., ordering immediate action to address discriminatory conditions faced by the two named plaintiffs. The court also denied the government’s motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed. The case, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, and Latham & Watkins LLP, challenges the federal government’s post-conviction supervision system in Washington, D.C. for systematically ignoring the needs of people with disabilities, thereby setting them up for failure on supervision and putting them at constant risk of sanctions, including incarceration. As the court held in its decision, such accommodations are likely required under federal disability law, specifically the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The preliminary injunction requires that the United States Parole Commission and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA), the two federal agencies responsible for supervision in D.C., assess what reasonable accommodations the two named plaintiffs require to have an equal opportunity to succeed on supervision, and provide all such required accommodations. “Absent an injunction,” the court’s decision reads, “the Parolees will be forced to participate in the Government’s supervision programs on an unequal footing just because of their disabilities.” People on supervision in D.C. are required to comply with myriad and onerous rules. For people with disabilities, navigating these complex conditions is even more challenging. For example, Plaintiff Mr. Mathis — a 70-year-old military veteran with congestive heart failure that limits his ability to walk — struggles to travel throughout the city to attend frequent supervision meetings that often conflict with necessary medical procedures and hospitalizations. His supervision officer required him to wear an ankle monitor even after his doctor warned the monitor would jeopardize his health due to his heart condition. Plaintiff Mr. Davis, who lives with chronic pain stemming from third-degree burns as well as mental health conditions, also faces disability-related barriers getting to required meetings. Yet failing to meet any of these conditions, even something as simple as missing an appointment, can land a person back in jail or prison, even when no new criminal conduct is alleged. The court agreed that “absent immediate relief, the Parolees will face irreparable harm; namely, obstacles to success on supervision solely because of their disabilities, which expose them to downstream harms like revocation and reincarceration.” The court did not decide whether it will ultimately certify a class that could yield relief for all people on supervision in D.C. who need accommodations. Instead, the court directed the parties to agree on a schedule for further proceedings on that issue. “The undue hardships faced by people with disabilities on federal criminal supervision in the District of Columbia have gone unaddressed for too long,” said Scott Michelman, legal director, ACLU of the District of Columbia. “This decision is a victory for equal treatment and common sense.” “The Court’s opinion emphatically rejects the federal government's ‘do-nothing’ policy for people with disabilities on supervision in Washington, D.C., who have been forced to navigate onerous requirements without accommodations for decades,” said Allison Frankel, staff attorney with the ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project. “This ruling ensures that our named Plaintiffs will have the accommodations they need to have a fair shot at completing parole and remaining in their communities.“ “We are thrilled the Court recognized that the Parole Commission and CSOSA must accommodate our clients’ disabilities so that they have an equal opportunity to succeed on supervision,” said Zoé Friedland, staff attorney with the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. “We will keep fighting to make this relief permanent and systemic so that all people on supervision have an equal chance to succeed.” The decision on the preliminary injunction can be found here: /cases/mathis-v-united-states-parole-commission?document=Preliminary-Injunction-Opinion The complaint can be found here: /documents/w-mathis-v-united-states-parole-commission-complaint