Tag Archives for H.R. 1

Medicare and Medicaid at 60: Historic Milestones, Looming Changes

Published in RINewstoday on August 4, 2025

As 68 million Medicare beneficiaries recognize the 60th anniversary of Medicare, changes are coming to these landmark programs. Presented as efforts to slash costs and combat fraud, the thought of change to Medicare in almost any way leaves many older Americans feeling threatened that their health and financial security will be impacted in a negative way.

A Legacy Under Threat – or Repair?

On July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed H.R. 6675 into law during a ceremony at the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri. Lasting between 45 and 60 minutes, the event marked the official creation of Medicare and extended guaranteed health coverage to 16 million Americans aged 65 and older—coverage that had not previously existed.

Former President Harry Truman, who had fought for national health insurance two decades earlier, was present for the ceremony. He was enrolled as Medicare’s first beneficiary and received the first Medicare card at the event.

Speaking at the bill signing, President Johnson declared, “No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine. No longer will illness crush and destroy the savings that they have so carefully put away over a lifetime… No longer will young families see their own incomes, and their own hopes, eaten away simply because they are carrying out their deep moral obligations to their parents.” Johnson concluded, “When the final chapter of this generation is written, it will be said that we met the needs of the old, and that we did not abandon them to the despair and loneliness and hardship that comes when illness strikes the aged.”

Today, Medicare provides universal health coverage to Americans age 65 and older—though, as the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM) humorously noted in its blog, “Ironically, the program is not yet old enough to qualify for itself.”

 The law created Part A to provide hospital insurance funded through payroll taxes and Part B to cover doctor visits and outpatient services on a voluntary basis. Part C, known as Medicare Advantage, offers a privatized, for-profit alternative to traditional Medicare. Part D (coverage through private, for-profit insurers rather than through the traditional Medicare program), added in 2003, provides coverage for prescription drugs. Over the years, Medicare has evolved to offer a wider range of services, yet it still falls short in some areas. Efforts to expand coverage to include essential benefits like dental, hearing, and vision have repeatedly failed to pass Congress.

Medicaid is a federal-state program that offers health coverage to low-income individuals, including children, pregnant people, and those with disabilities — in addition to covering long-term care for eligible seniors. It is a key funding source for U.S. safety net healthcare providers.

NCPSSM’s President and CEO, Max Richtman said that, “We should take a moment to marvel at the fact that — like Social Security — Medicare was created by national leaders who had a vision of a more just society, where, instead of leaving older people to get sick and die in poor houses or becoming a burden to their children, America would commit itself to providing basic health (and financial) security to our most vulnerable citizens.  Through the foresight of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, these benefits (Medicare Part A and Social Security) would be earned through workers’ payroll contributions, giving Americans a true stake in insuring themselves against the hardships of aging.”

What’s at Stake

Despite Medicare’s broad support, it has frequently come under political attack, often rationalized by concerns over its long-term financial viability. The most recent Medicare Trustees report projects that the program’s Part A trust fund could be depleted by 2033 if Congress does not act. At this point the fund’s reserves would only be able to pay 90% of the total scheduled benefits in what there is to spend on Part A.

In 2025, following weeks of political discourse, the “Big Beautiful Bill” was signed into law on July 4, 2025. Known formally as H.R. 1, the sweeping 900-page legislation passed the House on May 22 by the razor-thin margin of 215–214–1. Every House Democrat opposed the measure. Two Republicans joined them. Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris of Maryland voted “present.” Two Republican members abstained.

Richtman, sharply criticized the law, saying it “rips health coverage away from as many as 16 million Americans and food assistance from millions more.” Its Richtman’s opinion to warn that 7.2 million seniors who are dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid, and another 6.5 million who rely on SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), stand to lose vital support for health care and nutrition.

The Center for Medicare Advocacy (CMA) also raised serious concerns. CMA is a national, non-profit law organization, working to advance access to Medicare and quality health care through advocacy on behalf of older and disabled people. They warn that Medicare is being steadily privatized. More than half of all beneficiaries now receive their care through Medicare Advantage plans, which costs taxpayers approximately 20 percent more than traditional Medicare. These plans often restrict access to care through networks and pre-authorization requirements. CMA estimates that the $84 billion in overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans this year alone could instead have funded comprehensive dental, vision, and hearing coverage for every Medicare recipient.

CMA further maintains that H.R. 1 strips Medicare coverage from certain lawfully present immigrants who had earned eligibility through their work histories. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for Medicare. It also blocks implementation of enhancements to the Medicare Savings Program that would have helped low-income beneficiaries afford care, stops new federal nursing home staffing standards estimated to have the potential to save 13,000 lives per year, and limits Medicare’s ability to negotiate lower drug prices for some of the most expensive medications.

Medicaid, enacted alongside Medicare in 1965 to serve low-income individuals and families, faces even steeper reductions under H.R. 1. The law’s new eligibility restrictions are projected to cause from 10-16 million people to lose coverage.

Medicaid Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

Medicaid fraud, like other forms of healthcare fraud, involves intentionally submitting false information to receive payment for services not rendered, unnecessary services, or inflated claims. This fraudulent activity has serious consequences, harming patients, honest providers, and taxpayers. In 2024, the national Medicaid improper payment rate was estimated at 5.09%, translating to $31.1 billion in federal Medicaid improper payments. Medicaid Fraud Control Units (MFCUs) recovered $1.4 billion in FY 2024, representing a return of $3.46 for every $1 spent. Criminal recoveries in FY 2024 were the highest in 10 years, reaching $961 million, more than double the five-year average.

In 2024, 8% of Medicaid claims were deemed improper payments due to fraudulent practices. Fraudulent billing for services not rendered or exaggerated in complexity (upcoding or ghost billing) was a common theme in 2024 fraud cases. Misuse of telehealth and the involvement of third-party billing firms were also notable trends in Medicaid fraud cases in 2024. Prescription drug scams, especially involving opioids and controlled substances, remain among the most significant Medicaid fraud cases. Medicaid fraud in managed care settings increased by 30% in the past five years.

Examples of recipient fraud include lending or sharing a Medicaid Identification card; forging or altering a prescription or fiscal order, using multiple Medicaid ID cards, re-selling items provided by the Medicaid program, and selling or trading the card or number for money, gifts or non-Medicaid services.

Examples of provider Fraud, Waste, and Abuse include billing for Medicaid services that were not provided or for unnecessary services, selling prescriptions, intentionally billing for a more expensive treatment than was provided, giving money or gifts to patients in return for agreeing to get medical care, and accepting kickbacks for patient referrals.

Rhode Island Senators React 

In response to the changes in H.R. 1, Rhode Island’s U.S. Senators Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse joined the entire Senate Democratic caucus to introduce S. 2556 on July 30, the 60th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid. This three-page bill seeks to repeal the health care cuts included in H.R. 1 and permanently extend the Affordable Care Act’s enhanced tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of 2025. Full Democratic caucus sponsorship of legislation—led in this case by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer—is exceptionally rare and underscores their urgent need to call out the Big Beautiful Bill for its healthcare changes.

S 2556 has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee and at press time no House companion measure has been introduced.

Senator Reed emphasized the wide-reaching impact of H.R. 1, saying that millions of people are expected to lose health coverage under the combined effects of the bill’s Medicaid and ACA cuts. The repercussions, he said, will be felt by health clinics, hospitals, seniors, nursing homes, and patients across the country.

According to an analysis by KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation) 43,000 Rhode Islanders could lose health coverage due to the bill. Of those, 38,000 would lose insurance as a result of Medicaid cuts, and another 5,500 due to changes in the Affordable Care Act. The same analysis projected that Rhode Island would lose $3 to 5 billion in federal Medicaid funding over the next decade due to the law’s provisions.

Reed also noted that the bill includes cuts to the SNAP (food stamps) program—reducing federal funding by 20 percent through 2034. States would have the option to pick up the difference using their own funds.  In Rhode Island, where 1/3 of the population is on social welfare assistance of some kind, including Medicaid and SNAP, an estimated 144,000 Rhode Islanders are expected to lose SNAP benefits entirely. To maintain SNAP provisions in Rhode Island, the estimated cost could be as high as $51 million.

Reed explained that without ACA premium tax credits, younger workers will also face rising health insurance premiums beginning in 2026, putting additional financial strain on working families. When people lose access to health insurance, they are more likely to delay or skip care, leading to poorer health outcomes and higher overall costs. Federal law would still require hospitals to provide emergency care, meaning hospitals will absorb the financial burden when patients cannot pay. There are also new limits on how medical costs can be held against individuals, especially in Rhode Island, with provisions against destroyed credit ratings, liens, and bankruptcy moves.

BBB Supporters Say It’s a Pill We May Need

According to supporters of H.R. 1, recent changes to Medicare, Medicaid, and SNAP may be seen as fearful, but positive, because they improve affordability, access, and long-term health outcomes.  They says that H.R. 1. Medicare’s new $2,000 cap on drug costs protects seniors from crushing out‑of‑pocket expenses. Medicaid’s pilot coverage for obesity treatments like GLP‑1 drugs supports preventative care and could reduce chronic illness. Meanwhile, efforts to modernize SNAP enrollment and target benefits more effectively aim to reduce administrative waste and better serve low‑income families. However, the introduction of new SNAP work requirements, while controversial, is intended to encourage workforce or volunteer participation among beneficiaries. These reforms reflect a broader commitment to updating essential safety net programs, making them more efficient, equitable, and responsive to today’s health and economic realities—without sacrificing core benefits, supporters add.

A New Reality

As aging advocates and policymakers mark the 60th anniversaries of Medicare and Medicaid, they are forced to address a new reality in both programs. Rather than continually expanding to meet growing needs of older adults, these programs now face reductions that could lead to challenges in access, lower quality care, increased paperwork, disruption in treatment, higher premiums, and fewer covered services. Provider reimbursements are also expected to be cut, which may further limit access to care.

Instead of being a milestone for celebration, the 60th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid has become a turning point for aging advocate groups—marking not progress, but threat for millions of older Americans who depend on these essential programs to live with dignity, independence, and health.

Trump’s Big Bill, Big Promises – But a Bust for Seniors

Pubished in Blackstone Valley Call & Times on July 8, 2025

After 48 relentless days of political maneuvering—marked by cajoling, backroom bargaining, strategic threats, and last-minute incentives to win over stubborn holdouts—President Donald Trump finally got his wish: Congress passed his prized “One Big Beautiful Bill” (H.R. 1), which he triumphantly signed into law on July 4, 2025.

On May 22, 2025, the House narrowly approved the sweeping 900-page bill by a vote of 215–214–1. Every House Democrat opposed the measure. Two Republicans, Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Warren Davidson (R-OH), joined the opposition, while Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris (R-MD) voted “present.” Two GOP lawmakers did not vote.

What’s In the Bill: Tax Breaks Up, Safety Nets Down

The legislation extends the 2017 individual tax cuts and adds new deductions for tips, overtime pay, auto loan interest, and “Trump Accounts” for children. It raises the SALT deduction cap to $40,000 for five years, increases the child tax credit, imposes a remittance levy, and taxes college endowment income.

On the spending side, H.R. 1 raises the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, slashes over $1 trillion from Medicaid and Medicare, expands work requirements for  Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients, and allocates $150 billion each to defense and border enforcement—boosting ICE funding to over $100 billion by 2029.

Senate Republicans spent more than five weeks reviewing the House bill’s provisions to comply with the Byrd Rule, walking a tightrope between deficit hawks and moderates. After a marathon “vote-a-rama” that saw 46 amendment votes (only six of which passed), the Senate approved the bill 51–50 on July 1, with Vice President J.D. Vance casting the tie-breaking vote.

The reconciliation process allowed the Senate to pass the bill with a simple majority rather than the standard 60-vote threshold. When the bill returned to the House Speaker Mike Johnson and President Trump personally lobbied holdouts, linking support to other legislative priorities and negotiating procedural rules. Early on July 3, the House adopted the Senate version in a 218–214 vote, with only Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) voting with Democrats. The bill was sent to the White House and signed into law the following day.

Despite Republican praise, public reaction to Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” has been largely negative. A KFF Health Tracking Poll found that 64% of Americans view H.R. 1 unfavorably, compared to 35% in support.

President Trump and GOP leaders hailed the bill as a historic conservative win that fulfills “America First” promises—cutting taxes, slashing regulations, boosting border security, promoting energy independence, and reducing federal spending. “This is a major victory for hardworking families,” said Rhode Island GOP Chair Joe Powers in a statement, praising the bill for delivering middle-class tax relief and real border control.

But Congressman Gabe Amo (D-RI), representing Rhode Island’s 1st Congressional District, sees it differently and warns of the devastating consequences to aging programs and services.

“Trump’s big, ugly bill” shows that Republican lawmakers, following Trump’s marching orders, voted for “the largest theft in American history to further enrich the richest among us,” he says.

“Simply put, because of this horrific legislation, Americans will be poorer, sicker, hungrier, and further away from economic opportunity,” says the Rhode Island Congressman.

Deep Cuts and Dire Warnings from Aging Advocates

SACRI Policy Advisor Maureen Maigret emphasized the need for swift action in Rhode Island, stating, “It is crucial for the Secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services to promptly convene the advisory group outlined in Section 8 of the state’s FY 2026 budget bill.”

“For years, SACRI has worked to ensure a balanced system of long-term services—supporting quality nursing home care, expanding access to affordable home and community-based services, and collaborating with the Office of Healthy Aging and other aging advocacy groups to promote healthy aging,” says Maigret.

SACRI, a statewide coalition advocating for older Rhode Islanders, has partnered with other organizations to make significant strides in these areas, according to Executive Director Carol Anne Costa. “We cannot allow this progress to be reversed, especially as older adults are the fastest-growing segment of the state’s population,” Costa says.

“We have sent a letter to Secretary Charest requesting that SACRI be included in the advisory group established by Article 8 of the state’s FY 2026 budget bill.”

Now accounting for nearly 20 percent of the total population, the number of Americans age 65 and older is steadily increasing.

“Make no mistake: this harmful, cold-hearted bill will wreak havoc on our country’s fragile aging services infrastructure—at a time when demand for the Medicare and Medicaid-supported services it delivers is growing,” warns Katie Smith Sloan, president and CEO of LeadingAge.

“This legislation deals a significant blow to a core element of our country’s social safety net: Medicaid,” adds Sloan, emphasizing that the consequences “will not be pretty.”

She further warns, “Due to the level of deficit this bill will create, Medicare payments to providers may be reduced by 4% for the next ten years.”

According to Sloan, the bandaids included in H.R. 1—such as freezing (but not reducing) nursing home provider taxes and creating a rural health transformation fund, both touted as protections for older adults and aging services providers—will soon prove ill-equipped to prevent the bill’s damage. As states begin to grapple with budget shortfalls caused by reduced federal Medicaid contributions, the suffering, she says, will begin.

Max Richtman, President & CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, warned that 16 million Americans may lose health coverage, and millions more could lose access to food assistance. He stressed the bill’s devastating effects on the 7.2 million seniors dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid and the 6.5 million older adults who rely on SNAP benefits.

“These beneficiaries are some of the most vulnerable members of our society — and Republicans have put them at risk in order to pay for another tax cut mainly for the rich,” he says.

AARP: Safety Nets Shredded, Protections Undermined

Although AARP expressed strong opposition to many provisions in the reconciliation bill, the organization did support several key measures. These included increased investment in affordable housing through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, raising the additional senior standard deduction to $6,000, and expanding the Section 45S tax credit for paid family and medical leave.

Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond criticized the bill’s cuts to Medicaid, ACA Marketplace coverage, and food assistance, calling them particularly harmful to older adults, rural residents, and family caregivers. She emphasized that over 17 million Americans aged 50 and older rely on Medicaid to remain in their homes and manage chronic health conditions.

“This is a moment to strengthen—not weaken—the supports that help people stay in their homes, access needed health care, and live with dignity and independence,” said LeaMond, representing nearly 38 million members nationwide.

She stressed that AARP remained strongly opposed to Senate provisions that would slash Medicaid, Marketplace coverage, and food assistance, making it harder for older adults to get by.

“More than 17 million Americans age 50 and older rely on Medicaid as a critical safety net to stay in their homes, manage chronic conditions, and afford long-term care,” says LeaMond. “By limiting how states fund their Medicaid programs, the new law threatens health care access—particularly for people in rural and underserved areas and through safety-net providers,” she adds.

LeaMond also expressed concern over delayed implementation of nursing home staffing standards, which are estimated to save 13,000 lives annually, and provisions allowing drug companies to continue charging high prices for certain orphan drugs—even while selling the same medicines overseas at far lower costs.

AARP opposes H.R. 1’s new burdens that could cost people their health care or food assistance when they are unable to work due to age discrimination, caregiving responsibilities, or chronic illness. “This will only make it harder for many older adults to access needed health care and to put food on the table,” she says.

She also warns that the new SNAP cost-sharing formula could shift billions in expenses to state budgets, forcing states to restrict eligibility, reduce benefits, or withdraw from the program entirely.

Finally, AARP strongly opposed the bill’s 10-year moratorium on state and local regulation of artificial intelligence (AI), arguing that it undermines consumer protections in employment, housing, and health care—leaving older adults more vulnerable to harm from biased or untested AI systems.

For additional information on H.R. 1’s impact on senior programs and service, visit: aarp.org/advocacy/fight-senate-cuts-medicaid-snap
aarp.org/advocacy/support-budget-bill-tax-proposals

Voter reform must include accessibility for seniors and persons with disabilities

Published in RINewsToday on May 17, 2021

It’s over 540 days until the November 8, 2022 mid-term elections. The clock is ticking, say voter rights advocates, who are gearing up to push back at voting bills they see as restrictive being introduced at multiple state houses.  

As of March 24, 2021, GOP State legislators, responding to claims of voter fraud and election irregularities in last year’s Presidential election, have introduced 361 bills seen as restrictive by voter rights advocates in 47 states. “That’s 108 more than the 253 similar bills tallied as of February 19, 2021 — a 43 percent increase in little more than a month,” according to data compiled by the New York-based Brennan Center for Justice.

“These measures have begun to be enacted. Five restrictive bills have already been signed into law. In addition, at least 55 restrictive bills in 24 states are moving through legislatures: 29 have passed at least one chamber, while another 26 have had some sort of committee action (e.g., a hearing, an amendment, or a committee vote),” says the nonpartisan law and policy institute, noting that in some cases “a single bill can have provisions with both restrictive and expansive effects”.

President Joe Biden and Congressional Democrats are pushing back at GOP efforts they see as “suppressing voting” and introduced H.R. 1, For the People Act, which would be intended to “expand voting rights, change campaign finance laws, end partisan gerrymandering and create new ethics for federal lawmakers”.  The bill is considered to be the largest overhaul of U.S. voting in a generation, and is opposed by GOP lawmakers, who call it overreaching.

Fix Voter Access Issues for Seniors, and Persons with Disabilities

Although newspapers regularly cover both voter security and voter rights issues, voter access issues impacting seniors and persons with disabilities don’t receive adequate ink. 

Now, a national report’s findings reveal that some obstacles still exist for disabled voters at the polls. The recently released U.S. Election Commission (EAC)’s comprehensive 52-page national report, “Disability and Voting Accessibility in the 2020 Elections,” identified accessibility issues for voters with disabilities.  The study focused on polling place access, mail and absentee voting accessibility, election administration challenges, COVID-19 obstacles, and community involvement.

As the EAC plans for future elections, this data will be crucial in helping officials adopt new voting technologies and address the ever-growing accessibility needs of an aging demographic.

“In an election year with so many obstacles and unknowns, the improvement in accessibility for voters with disabilities is a testament to the hard work and dedication of election officials,” EAC Chairman Ben Hovland said, in a February 16, 2021 statement announcing the release of the report. “We are proud of election officials’ accomplishments during an especially difficult election season. This study provides the EAC with indispensable feedback as we continue our work with election officials and accessibility experts to ensure all Americans can vote privately and independently,” he said.

The EAC spearheaded the study under clearinghouse and research mandates outlined in the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The goal of the study was to analyze the 2020 election experience for voters with disabilities amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Building on a similar 2012 study also conducted by the EAC in conjunction with Professors Schur and Kruse, of Rutgers University, the project launched immediately after the 2020 general election.

The 2020 study engaged 2,569 respondents including 1,782 voters with disabilities and 787 voters without disabilities. As in 2012, the oversampling of voters with disabilities was designed to produce a sample large enough for more accurate measurements and reliable breakdowns by demographic variables and type of disability.

Compared to 2012, overall results show election officials made great progress serving voters with disabilities and ensuring they could cast a private and independent ballot. Obstacles continue to exist, but improvements were evident.

According to the researchers, voting difficulties among people with disabilities declined markedly from 2012 to 2020. About one in nine voters with disabilities encountered difficulties voting in 2020. This is double the rate of people without disabilities, but a sizeable drop from 2012.

The study’s findings indicated that among people with disabilities who voted in person, 18 percent reported difficulties, compared to 10 percent of people without disabilities. The disability figure is down from 30 percent in 2012.

During a general election that experienced a shift to mail and absentee voting, 5 percent of voters with disabilities had difficulties using a mail ballot, compared to 2 percent of voters without disabilities. One in seven (14 percent) of voters with disabilities using a mail ballot needed assistance or encountered problems in voting, compared to only 3 percent of those without disabilities. 

The researchers found that five of six (83 percent) of voters with disabilities voted independently without any difficulty in 2020, compared to over nine of ten (92 percent) of voters without disabilities. Voting difficulties were most common among people with vision and cognitive impairments.

Close to 75 percent of voters with disabilities voted with a mail ballot or early in-person in 2020. This represents a significant increase from 2012 and is higher than the two-thirds of non-disabled voters who did so in 2020, say the researchers. No doubt the pandemic influenced the increase.

Finally, the researchers note that people with disabilities voted at a 7 percent lower rate than people without disabilities of the same age, pointing toward a continuing disability gap in voter turnout.

Senate Moves to Remove Barriers for Seniors and Disabled

Last month, U.S. Senators Bob Casey (D-PA), Chairman of the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging, and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Chairwoman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration, introduced the Accessible Voting Act, legislation to remove barriers to voting for seniors and people with disabilities.  This legislation is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR). Notably, an all Democratic sponsorship at this time.

This legislative action was triggered by a Government Accountability Study that found that combined deficiencies in architectural and voting booth access resulted in only 17 percent of polling places being fully accessible in 2016. The Accessible Voting Act would make polling places and voting systems more accessible, expand options for casting a ballot in federal elections and establish an Office of Accessibility within the Election Assistance Commission, dedicated to overseeing and supporting state efforts to make voting more accessible.

“The right to vote is one of the fundamental pillars of American democracy. That right is jeopardized when seniors and people with disabilities are pushed to the margins by barriers that prevent or make it hard for them to cast their ballots,” said Senator Casey in a statement announcing the introduction of the bill. “The Accessible Voting Act would remove these barriers and support the ongoing efforts by state and local agencies to make voting a truly equitable and accessible process,” he said.

“The right to vote is the foundation of our democracy, but exercising that right is not possible for too many Americans. Inaccessible polling places and voting booths, limited access to transportation, insufficient options for casting ballots, and inaccessible voter information websites are all obstacles to voting for millions of Americans,” adds Klobuchar. “The Accessible Voting Act would help ensure that we remove barriers to voting for citizens with disabilities, the elderly, Native Americans, and those with limited English proficiency. Our democracy works best when all citizens can make their voices heard at the ballot box,” she said.

“Despite existing federal law protecting the rights of people with disabilities, far too often, these rights are overlooked and forgotten in our electoral process. The Accessible Voting Act seeks to bolster the protections for voters with disabilities, as established by the Americans with Disabilities Act and Help America Vote Act, and ensure equitable access to every American voter in our democracy for years to come,” said Curt Decker, executive director, National Disability Rights Network.

The Accessible Voting Act would create a national resource center on accessible voting to conduct cultural competency training for election officials and poll workers.  It would establish a new state grant program for the Office of Accessibility to provide dedicated funding to improve accessibility to voting. Finally, it would provide voting information and resources through accessible websites so voters know how to register to vote and cast a ballot.

As Congress grapples with legislation coming from both parties to tighten voter security on one hand, and ease voter restrictions on the other, it will be a significant failure to not also address the issues of accessibility for our population facing aging and disability obstacles.