« May 2012 | Main | July 2012 »
Excerpt from Washington Post: (click for entire article)
Hypothesis: There is literally nothing the Internet cannot make funny. Proof: Today, the Supreme Court ruled on the Affordable Care Act. That is to say, the least funny branch of government issued a dense report on one of the most complicated pieces of legislation Congress has ever passed. And, if you were looking the right corners of the Internet, it was a laugh riot.
| | | |
| |
Excerpt from National Sr. Citizens Law Center: (click for entire alert)
Can an assisted living facility be considered a "non-institutional" setting for purposes of Medicaid home and community-based services (HCBS) funding? The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has proposed regulations to address this question, and comments on the regulation are due on Monday July 2, 2012. Our discussion of the proposed regulations is here.
The proposed regulations are part of a regulatory package to implement the Medicaid HCBS State-plan benefit. Under this benefit, states are able to offer HCBS services without obtaining a waiver. Under the state-plan benefit, HCBS services cannot be subject to an enrollment cap.
If you wish to be heard regarding this important proposal, we encourage you to file your comments with the federal government. NSCLC has prepared a sample letter which you may wish to use as model.
| | | |
| |
Excerpt from National Health Law Program: (click for entire article)
Court removes the “gun from the States’ heads” but leaves open possibility of States shooting themselves in the foot.
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Issued yesterday, the decision is surprising not only for its legal reasoning but also because of how the justices voted.
1. Anti-Injunction Act Does Not Bar Review of the Merits.
2. Minimum Coverage Requirement Valid Exercise of Congressional TAXING Authority
3. Medicaid Expansion: Court Buys the “Gun to the Head” Analogy
| | | |
| |
Excerpt from Mercury News: (click for entire article)
In a span of three years, two cars plowed into Danny Reed, leaving him brain-injured and partially paralyzed. But the San Jose man eventually earned a measure of relief -- a trust fund created for a lifetime of care.
Then he was hit again, this time in a seldom-watched branch of Santa Clara County Superior Court, when the man appointed by a judge to protect Reed's assets delivered the six-figure bill for his services.
While Reed's case stands out among the roughly 1,500 elderly and incapacitated adults whose lives and finances are overseen by Santa Clara County's probate court, a six-month Mercury News investigation found a small group of the county's court-appointed personal and estate managers are handing out costly and questionable bills -- and charging even more if they are challenged.
Over the next four days, on MercuryNews.com and in the newspaper, you can learn more about the troubling trend that is depleting the life savings of some of Silicon Valley's most vulnerable adults -- and the local practices and state laws that allow it to persist.
| | | |
| |
Excerpt from Business Management Daily: (click for entire article)
A top-performing employee is diagnosed with depression and now says her medication makes it impossible for her to come to work on time. Must an employer change her work schedule?
A job applicant voluntarily informs you that he is intellectually disabled, but says he can perform his job with a job coach. Is that a reasonable accommodation?
Are you prepared to answer those questions ... and more?
The ADA requires employers to reasonably accommodate applicants or employees with mental or physical disabilities who are qualified to perform the job’s essential functions with or without a reasonable accommodation.
Still, it’s a tricky issue. These questions and answers come from recent court cases and EEOC guidance.
| | | |
| |
Excerpt from Tribune 242: (click for entire article)
The number of disabled persons residing in The Bahamas is grossly under-reported according to global population averages.
Less that one per cent of the estimated population is registered with the Department of Social Services, according to Leonard Cargill, Chief Disability Affairs in the Department of Social Services, who underscored the widespread need for greater resources, and increased public and governmental conviction.
Mr Cargill also called for greater autonomy within the department to lessen bureaucratic service delays.
"In any given population, usually 10-15 per cent of the population is considered disabled," Mr Cargill said.
"Looking at our population, we're looking at 30,000 people. We try to capture every person in our registry, but we need some help in that regard to upkeep the registry."
"We are planning to do this legislation coming about soon," he said.
"There's a challenge in bringing about a feeling of the spirit of the legislation. If we're going to pass this legislation we ought to be serious about what we're doing now for persons with disabilities."
This week, disabled persons lashed out at the government's slow pace to enact legislation they hope will address long-standing inequalities.
| | | |
| |
Excerpt from Seattle Times: (click for entire article)
Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts has settled a federal lawsuit that had accused it of failing to provide adequate access for the disabled at its Avery Fisher Hall.
The lawsuit was filed Wednesday by the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan and was simultaneously settled.
It alleged the 1962 concert hall was in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act due to a lack of wheelchair space. It also asserted some restrooms don't comply with regulations.
Lincoln Center has agreed to make changes, including adding wheelchair seating and accessible parking and renovating restrooms.
A Lincoln Center spokeswoman says the facility is pleased the situation has been resolved and the hall will be more accessible to patrons.
| | | |
| |
Excerpt from Care2: (click for entire article)
I was definitely among those Americans breathing a huge sigh of relief on learning yesterday that the Supreme Court upheld most of the provisions of President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act. Among the myriad concerns my husband Jim and I have on our minds as our teenage son Charlie, who’s on the moderate to severe end of the autism spectrum, approaches adulthood is providing for his medical care.
The ACA’s provision that children can stay on their parents’ health insurance under they are 26 makes a huge diference for Charlie and for other kids and individuals with disabilities. It is very uncertain what sort of employment (if any) Charlie will have after he finishes school when he is 21 years old and definitely up in the air if a job for him would come with insurance.
| | | |
| |
Excerpt from Washington Post: (click for entire article)
I have a husband (going into 21 years of marriage), three children, a demanding career and a ministry at my church that helps people learn to manage their money. When people hear about all the things I’m committed to do, they either ask, “How do you do it all?” or “When do you have time for everything?”
“I don’t sleep much,” is my standard answer to both questions.
And I don’t. I might average five hours a night trying to do it all. But every few weeks, the lack of sleep catches up with me, and I crash, spending a Saturday curled under my bed covers shooing away kids, husband and callers. The only other way I keep so many balls in the air is because I have control over my work schedule, a situation that is not typical for many working women – or men.
So I agree with the July/August Atlantic magazine cover story in which Anne-Marie Slaughter, the first woman to be director of policy planning at the State Department and the mother of two teenage boys, dared to say that many modern-day women trying to balance a demanding career and raise a family can’t do it all – at least not well.
| | | |
| |
Excerpt from South Milwaukee Now: (click for entire article)
Wisconsin residents with disabilities had a lot riding on today’s Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act, and the state’s largest disability coalition is announcing strong support for today’s decision ensuring key protections.
“The Court’s decision will ensure that health insurance companies cannot deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions or discriminate based on an individual’s health status,” says Tom Masseau, Disability Rights Wisconsin Executive Director. “These protections are huge for people with disabilities who face major obstacles to getting healthcare.” Preexisting condition protections are currently in place for children and will go into effect for adults in 2014.
The ruling also affirms the importance of services and protections for individuals with disabilities through access to habilitative and rehabilitative services and devices, mental health and substance disorder services, preventive and wellness services, chronic disease management, and basic services for children, such as vision and dental care. It also continues to lower the costs of prescription drugs for people with disabilities and extends and enhances the Money Follows the Person program, which has helped people move out of institutions and into less costly, more independent community-based settings.
| | | |
| |
Recent Comments