Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Federal Medicaid Cuts Will Harm Americans with Disabilities

Opinion

An occupational therapist sits with a young boy at a table as they work on some of his motor skills.​

The Massachusetts Developmental Disabilities Council is amplifying the voices of people with IDD and autism, sharing powerful stories of how Medicaid makes their lives in the community possible—and what’s at stake if it's cut.

Getty Images, FatCamera

My brother Todd, a diehard Red Sox fan with a massive sweet tooth, was an incredibly social person. This was especially notable because he did not speak, used a wheelchair, and needed constant support throughout his day due to his cerebral palsy. Growing up with Todd taught me early on that people should get what they need to live meaningful and self-determined lives. Thanks to Medicaid, Todd received personal care assistance, in-home therapies, and employment services. These supports enabled him to graduate from his local public high school, work part-time as an adult, and live a full and social life. Those same Medicaid services also allowed our mother, who was a single parent for over three years, to work full-time to provide for her six children.

Unfortunately, those services are now under direct threat. In late May, the House of Representatives passed the Trump administration’s reconciliation bill in a narrow, partisan vote (215-214). The bill is now being debated in the Senate and could be passed and signed into law before the July 4th holiday. Among many other measures, if enacted, the bill would implement the largest cut to Medicaid in its history, totaling over $800 billion. Cuts of this magnitude could strip 10 to 13 million people nationwide of longstanding and essential healthcare services they depend on, threatening their health, independence, and quality of life.


In my state of Massachusetts, we would see immediate issues. That’s because the bill includes cutting $1.75 billion of federal funding for MassHealth, the state’s Medicaid program—and the largest program in the state’s annual budget. As a result, the entire healthcare system in our state would be affected: healthcare professionals would be laid off, prices for essential medications and services would rise, and more than 250,000 Massachusetts residents would experience a loss of access to vital medical support.

Among those most impacted would be people like my brother Todd—people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities (IDD) who rely on Medicaid to help them live fulfilling lives. To understand the devastating impact of these Medicaid cuts on people with IDD, including those with autism, it’s crucial to recognize the distinction between mandatory and non-mandatory Medicaid services.

Mandatory services, which are required by law, consist of healthcare services like doctor visits, medical care in hospitals, and long-term services and supports that are provided in nursing homes or institutions. Non-mandatory services, which are optional and vary by state, consist of dental care, some therapies, and most home- and community-based services (HCBS) provided through Medicaid waiver programs.

Many non-mandatory services are lifelines to individuals with IDD and autism to remain in their communities, allowing them to live safely and with dignity in their own homes and to engage meaningfully in lives of their choosing. Although they are labeled “non-mandatory,” these supports are absolutely critical for people with IDD and their families. Yet, because they are optional, non-mandatory services are most likely to be affected by any cuts to Medicaid. Mandatory services, meanwhile, are required by law and thus less likely to be affected by cuts to Medicaid. As a result, families may have no other options besides institutional care.

Additionally, many individuals with IDD and autism gained access to healthcare through the Affordable Care Act’s option for states to expand Medicaid coverage. But proposed cuts to Medicaid in the reconciliation bill would be more likely to affect those with Medicaid expansion coverage because the federal government covers 90% of costs for Medicaid expansion compared to 50% for traditional Medicaid. This would hit especially hard in states like Massachusetts where long waitlists already limit access to home- and community-based care.

Nationally, the best available data indicate over 700,000 people across 38 states are on waiting lists for home- and community-based care. Any cuts to Medicaid would mean that even fewer people with IDD and autism receive the services they need.

The Massachusetts Developmental Disabilities Council is amplifying the voices of people with IDD and autism, sharing powerful stories of how Medicaid makes their lives in the community possible—and what’s at stake if it's cut. Amber Petell, for example, lives with quadriplegic cerebral palsy. She shared, “I'm able to work a job that I love and support others with disabilities because I have the support I need to stay healthy and do the things I want and need to do…I need a caregiver to get out of bed, get ready for the day, get to work, and use the bathroom. If Medicaid is cut, I will not have basic support to meet any of my basic physical needs.”

Or take it from Cynthia Laine, a mother with two teenage autistic sons. She said, “Because of Medicaid, my sons have made incredible progress. Every small step, whether it's expressing emotions through gestures or making connections with peers, represents hours of therapy and support. These gains are fragile, and cutting Medicaid would disrupt the very foundation that allows them to grow and thrive.”

If Medicaid cuts are passed and signed into law, the support that Amber, Cynthia, and so many others rely on to complete basic everyday necessities will be lost. Eliminating funding for these services would be a devastating step backwards—and could force people back into institutions, undoing decades of progress in providing services in the most integrated settings possible and increasing school and community inclusion.

Instead, efforts to expand HCBS waivers should continue. This would increase community-based care in integrated settings and decrease the number of people with IDD in institutions and on waitlists. States also should be compelled to accurately and consistently (i.e., across states) report their HCBS waiting list data, including how many people with IDD are on the waiting list, whether people are screened for eligibility, what the average wait time is, and whether any services are provided while on the waitlist.


Dr. Zachary Rossetti is an associate professor of special education at BU Wheelock College of Education & Human Development.

Read More

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

A deep look at the fight over rescinding Medals of Honor from U.S. soldiers at Wounded Knee, the political clash surrounding the Remove the Stain Act, and what’s at stake for historical justice.

Getty Images, Stocktrek Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

Should the U.S. soldiers at 1890’s Wounded Knee keep the Medal of Honor?

Context: history

Keep ReadingShow less
The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

Migrant families from Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and Haiti live in a migrant camp set up by a charity organization in a former hospital, in the border town of Matamoros, Mexico.

(Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to end Temporary Protected Status for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, effective November 7, 2025. Although the exact mechanisms and details are unclear at this time, the message from DHS is: “Venezuelans, leave.”

Proponents of the Administration’s position (there is no official Opinion from SCOTUS, as the ruling was part of its shadow docket) argue that (1) the Secretary of DHS has discretion to determine designate whether a country is safe enough for individuals to return from the US, (2) “Temporary Protected Status” was always meant to be temporary, and (3) the situation in Venezuela has improved enough that Venezuelans in the U.S. may now safely return to Venezuela. As a lawyer who volunteers with immigrants, I admit that the two legal bases—Secretary’s broad discretion and the temporary nature of TPS—carry some weight, and I will not address them here.

Keep ReadingShow less
For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

U.S. Supreme Court

Photo by mana5280 on Unsplash

The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

Two years after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, universities are scrambling to maintain diversity through “race-neutral” alternatives they believe will be inherently fair. New economic research reveals that colorblind policies may systematically create inequality in ways more pervasive than even the notorious “old boy” network.

The “old boy” network, as its name suggests, is nothing new—evoking smoky cigar lounges or golf courses where business ties are formed, careers are launched, and those not invited are left behind. Opportunity reproduces itself, passed down like an inheritance if you belong to the “right” group. The old boy network is not the only example of how a social network can discriminate. In fact, my research shows it may not even be the best one. And how social networks discriminate completely changes the debate about diversity.

Keep ReadingShow less