Back to UDW Legislation & Political Pages 

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 151 — In-Home Supportive Services
Introduced by Assembly Member Fiona Ma

UDW sponsored this resolution, which would declare the intent of the Legislature to preserve home care and personal care services to seniors and people with disabilities through the In-Home Supportive Services program.

Background:

The IHSS program suffered devastating cuts in the 2009-2010 budget process. In February 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger signed SBX3 6 (Chapter 13, Statutes of 2009), which reduced State financial participation for IHSS provider wages to $9.50 per (plus $.60 in benefits). Stakeholders responded by filing a lawsuit in United States District Court in May 2009 (Dominguez et. al. v Schwarzenegger). Though the matter is still pending, the Court issued preliminary injunctions halting implementation of the mandate. It determined that “Plaintiffs have established a strong likelihood of success on their claim that the State Defendants have violated the procedural requirements of the Medicaid Act. The Court also concludes that Plaintiffs will suffer an irreparable injury if the IHSS cuts are implemented and, furthermore, the cuts are reasonably likely to cost the State more money in the long run as individuals currently receiving in-home health services are required to turn to institutionalized care due to the difficulty of finding IHSS providers willing to work for the reduced wages. Accordingly, the Court grants the preliminary injunction.”

In July 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger signed ABX4 4 (Chapter 4, Statutes of 2009), which introduced new eligibility standards for IHSS based on Functional Index scores and ranks. Stakeholders responded by filing a lawsuit in United States District Court in October 2009 (Oster et. al. v Wagner). Though the matter is still pending, the Court issued preliminary injunctions blocking the implementation of the new eligibility guidelines. If implemented, the guidelines will eliminate or severely reduce homecare services for more than 100,000 recipients.

The Court recognized that these cuts were a step backward vis-a-vis the mandate of the Americans with Disability Act and the Olmstead ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. Olmstead declares that individuals who can live at home must be given that option as opposed to institutional care. Governor Schwarzenegger justified the proposed massive cuts by pointing to the state’s fiscal crisis. However, the court responded by stating that “[a]lthough the State counters that its budget crisis requires such cuts, and the Court weighs this in the balance, the increase in more expensive hospitalization and institutionalization of needy disabled and elderly people will likely outweigh the short-term savings.”

UDW continues to oppose any cut in funding for the program, as it would have a negative effect on providers and recipients. The individuals receiving IHSS are low-income and could not afford to pay out-of-pocket for the services provided through the program. This would have the effect of shifting care to other sectors of the government including the developmental disability system, aging programs, long-term care and emergency rooms. Because the IHSS program is predominantly funded by the federal Medicaid program, reducing these services also would return an estimated $1.2 billion annually to the federal government if fully implemented.

Status:Chaptered by the Secretary of State (Chapter 143, Statutes of 2010) on September 9, 2010

______________________________

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 177
20th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act
Introduced by Assembly Member Mariko Yamada and Assembly Member Wesley Chesbro

UDW sponsored this resolution, which would recognize July 26, 2010 as the twentieth anniversary of the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and, further, would recommit the Legislature to efforts to reach full compliance with the Act. It would also recognize the In-Home Supportive Services program as the cornerstone of California’s compliance with the integration mandate of the ADA.

Background:

The ADA was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush on July 26, 1990. It ensures the civil rights of people with disabilities, establishing a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. It was a collaborative effort of Democrats, Republicans, the legislative and the executive branches, federal and state agencies, and people with and without disabilities.

The ADA provides a valuable tool to remove barriers that prevent people with disabilities from enjoying the same opportunities that are available to individuals without disabilities. The Act provides for broad nondiscrimination protection for individuals with disabilities in employment, public services, public accommodations and services provided by private entities, transportation and communications. The enactment of the ADA twenty years ago reaffirmed our nation’s commitment to the needs of the people with disabilities. It is our duty to ensure that this commitment continues.

In adopting the ADA, Congress recognized that “historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem,” and that “individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of discrimination, including outright intentional exclusion, … failure to make modifications to existing facilities and practices, … [and] segregation.” To this end, ADA regulations require provision of services in the most integrated setting possible, “A public entity shall administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified persons with disabilities.” The most integrated setting is defined as “a setting that enables individuals with disabilities to interact with non-disabled persons to the fullest extent possible.” This mandate serves one of the principal purposes of Title II of the ADA: ending the isolation and segregation of disabled persons.

The “integration mandate” of the ADA was upheld in the 1999 U.S. Supreme Court Olmstead decision, which requires public agencies to provide services in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities. In Olmstead, the Court applied these integration and anti-isolation principles, holding that the ADA prohibits “unjustified isolation of the disabled.” The Court reasoned that unnecessary institutional placement “perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable or unworthy of participating in community life,” and “severely diminishes the everyday life activities of individuals, including family relations, social contacts, work options, economic independence, educational advancement, and cultural enrichment.”

The In-Home Supportive Services program allows approximately 430,000 low-income disabled, senior and blind Californians to stay safely at home and avoid unnecessary, expensive and unwanted institutionalization. It is a nationally recognized program and the foundation of California’s efforts to comply with the Olmstead decision. The people who use IHSS services have been determined by county social workers to need these personal care services to avoid the risk of injury or other harm.

Status: Chaptered by the Secretary of State (Chapter 158, Statutes of 2010)

# # # #