Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

The Trump Administration’s Plan for Protecting Consumers? Politely Ask Companies to Behave.

Russell Vought, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, testified before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs in July.

Samuel Corum/Sipa USA via AP Images

The Trump Administration’s Plan for Protecting Consumers? Politely Ask Companies to Behave.

In mid-July testimony before Congress, Russell Vought boasted that, as the acting head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he’d refashioned the agency’s approach to pursuing banks and other financial companies accused of exploiting Americans — the role Congress had created for the agency after the 2008 economic crash.

Vought had spent the first 18 months of the new Trump administration trying to dismantle the bureau, much as he and other appointees had done with the U.S. Agency for International Development. At CFPB, he’d ordered mass layoffs, tried to choke off the bureau’s funding and ended the lease on its headquarters, attempting to make good on his vow to put civil servants “in trauma.” But federal courts blocked Vought’s efforts to close the CFPB, with a judge at one point saying the administration had acted with “complete disregard” for Congress.

Keep ReadingShow less
A man walks with a ship behind him

man walks near the Punta Cardon refinery, on Jan. 23, 2026. Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world with an estimated 303 billion barrels.

(Jesus Vargas/dpa via ZUMA Press/TNS)

Americans should be concerned about the fine print on Trump’s new oil deal

So, it was a war for oil after all.

On social media Friday, President Trump announced that the United States and Venezuela have struck an agreement for “THE BIGGEST OIL DEAL IN WORLD HISTORY.”

Keep ReadingShow less
​Teal shoes are displayed outside Naval Medical Center Portsmouth

Teal shoes are displayed outside Naval Medical Center Portsmouth in April 2018 as part of Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month.

Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Kris R. Lindstrom/U.S. Navy

Military Sexual Trauma Survivors Can’t Sue the Government. A New Bill Could Change That.

When Mayra Diaz opened the door of her Army barracks room in 2022, she didn’t realize it was the beginning of the end of her military career.

She had never met the soldier standing in front of her, Sgt. Greville Clarke. She didn’t know he had sexually assaulted three other women on base over the past 15 months, including one he threatened at knifepoint.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Horizontal photo of a DEMOCRATIC PARTY FLAG

Horizontal photo of a DEMOCRATIC PARTY FLAG with a stylized DONKEY with 3 white stars on blue top of donkey and two red feet. Flag is laying on top of a red, white, and blue American Flag.

Getty Images

How to Define the Democratic Party - Left or Centrist?

Labels can be misleading and misused. The label "Centrist" is empowering because it signifies you are mainstream, not extreme, a place where all people can come together. To be labeled "Left" is to place you outside the mainstream, extreme; left connotes a kind of kookiness as well as—horror of horrors—Socialism.

But are the labels accurate? For most of the 20th century, the Democratic Party was, without question, the party that championed the working man, the average person—the people. But they were nevertheless firm capitalists—they were not Socialists.

Keep ReadingShow less