Today, Disability Rights Connecticut (DRC) announced it would be filing suit against Connecticut’s Department of Social Services (DSS), alleging the state of unfairly discriminating against disabled individuals in its consideration of Medicaid eligibility. The announcement was made in front of the State Superior Court in Hartford, where the suit is to be filed.
One of DRC’s attorneys on the case, Sheldon Toubman, said that the differing Medicaid eligibility thresholds between state residents with disabilities and other qualifying residents represent discrimination in direct violation of the State Constitution’s Equal Protections Clause. Toubman was joined by two other attorneys presiding over the case, Gina Teixeira, another DRC attorney, and James Bhandary-Alexander, Legal Director of Yale’s Medical Legal Partnership.
“When we heard from Sheldon Toubman about the situation with HUSKY C, we were pretty struck by the basic legal realities here, which is that the State Constitution prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities, but the state of Connecticut is deciding to discriminate against people with disabilities,” said Bhandary-Alexander. “A lot can happen in litigation, but this doesn’t seem like even a complicated enough issue for a law school exam.”
The suit is not looking for any financial recourse for its plaintiffs but instead requests that a declaratory judgment be made to bring the income eligibility limit of HUSKY C, the state’s Medicaid plan for both the severely disabled and elderly, in line with that of HUSKY D, which is set at 138% of the federal poverty level.
Toubman explained that HUSKY A and D, the state’s two primary Medicaid programs for non-disabled and non-elderly residents, have an income limit of $1,800 a month, whereas HUSKY C, the state’s Medicaid program for both the severely disabled and elderly, has an income limit of only $1,370 a month. Furthermore, HUSKY C is the only plan to have an asset limit incorporated in its eligibility determination process; to qualify for HUSKY C, one must have less than $1,600 in assets.
“We require people with disabilities to be extremely poor, to ‘deserve,’ state sponsored health care,” said Rep. Anne Hughes (D-Easton), a member of the state’s Human Services Committee. “That is wrong, it is immoral, and it’s left over from a legacy of dehumanization of people with disabilities.”
Laura D’Errico, one of two plaintiffs named in the suit, spoke of the “frustrating paradox” she faces as a result of the state’s current Medicaid eligibility limits. D’Errico, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, explained that the money she receives from her monthly Social Security Disability Insurance payments is $76 higher than the income limit for HUSKY C, making her only eligible for Medicare.
“While Medicare is a vital resource, it does not provide the comprehensive care that individuals like myself require,” said D’Errico. “In my case, I lost my balance due to my condition, resulting in two cracked front teeth. For two long years, I lived with pain, embarrassment and unable to access dental care.”
D’Errico said she finally was able to get the dental care but had to finance the $4,000 treatment through a private lender. As a result, she now has mounting interest payments that she is unable to cover on her limited income.
“It is essential to recognize that this is not just my story,” said D’Errico. “It is the story of many individuals with disabilities who find themselves in similar situations or worse.”
Toubman could not provide an exact number of state residents who would qualify as plaintiffs if the suit were to be elevated to a class-action, but he estimated the number to be in the thousands. He said that elevating the suit to a class-action “is a possibility,” but that he’s hoping that it won’t have to reach that point, and that lawmakers will simply see the lawsuit and address this session. If that were to happen, Tooubman said he thinks “the lawsuit would be moot, and I think everybody would be happy.”
Hughes noted that the Human Services Committee has raised two bills this session, SB 11 and SB 807, which would alter the eligibility thresholds. She noted that the income and asset eligibility thresholds were first set in the 1970s and have yet to be adjusted, asserting that it is on lawmakers today to atone for the mistakes of past lawmakers by adjusting the limits.
Rick Famiglietti, Program Manager for the Center for Disability Advocates, recounted some of the history regarding the issue of differing eligibility. Famiglietti noted that the issue was almost solved in 2023 when two bills were proposed to raise the income and asset eligibility limits but were never brought to vote. Famiglietti, himself disabled, called on Gov. Ned Lamont “not to be a zero, and be my hero.”
“I don’t understand why he’s got this thing against people with disabilities – We work hard,” said Famiglietti.
He explained how the current eligibility limits essentially incentivize those with disabilities not to work. He said that if he “stops working tomorrow,” and loses his current coverage, he would essentially be forced to impoverish himself to meet the asset limit required of HUSKY C.
“What was my incentive to go to work for the past 25 years, I ask you?” said Famiglietti. “There isn’t, other than hoping that something will change.”
The speakers at today’s conference all indicated that they have been involved in advocacy on the issue of differing eligibility for years. Toubman said that he has advocated for Medicaid expansion for approximately 35 years, but that the issue especially reached a head when Connecticut became one of the first states to opt into Medicaid expansion.
“People who are not disabled and qualified for that were in better shape than people with disabilities who had a lower access to health care, and frankly, people with disabilities overall have a greater need to access health care,” said Toubman. “So it didn’t make any sense, and so people would start coming to us instead.”
All attorneys present expressed the utmost confidence in their ability to win the suit. Toubman noted that California made similar changes approximately four years ago, raising its previously lower asset limit on plans for its blind and disabled residents.
“California, without any constitutional provision requiring it, ended the discrimination on income eligibility and, just like we’re asking for here, [they] had the income limit be the same – 138% of poverty for all adults,” said Toubman. “And then last year, they got rid of asset limits entirely for the age by disabled population as well.”
The other plaintiff in the suit, Frank Caggiano, was not present at today’s press conference. DRC’s complaint, a copy of which was provided to Inside Investigator, tells his story. Per the complaint, Caggiano suffers from severe hearing loss, and “has been unable to see his audiologist for hearing testing and for hearing aid adjustment, cleaning, and battery replacement. He has also lost access entirely to his dentist and his mental health therapist.”
Ultimately, D’Errico insisted that those with disabilities are not asking for preferential treatment, but simply for equal access to the care they deserve.
“We are not asking for special treatment for others to be denied care, rather, we are advocating for fairness and the right to access the health care that we need to live with dignity and health,” said D’Errico. “The current system discriminates against those of us who need better health care coverage the most. It is time to address these disparities and ensure that all individuals, regardless of their disability status, have access to the health care they require.”
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
