Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Developmental Disability Definition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advocates Ask Legislature to Adopt Federal Definition of Developmental Disability
Summary
Lawmakers and advocates told the committee broadening the state's definition to match the federal definition would expand service eligibility for people with cerebral palsy, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and other conditions currently excluded.
Advocates and lawmakers urged the Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities on Thursday to update Massachusetts' definition of developmental disability to mirror the broader federal definition, which they said would expand access to services.
Sponsor Senator Lovely and Representative O'Day, co-sponsors of Senate 150 and House 276, said the state's current definition excludes some conditions such as fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) and certain cases of cerebral palsy from services administered by the Department of Developmental Services (DDS).
Senator Lovely said "S 150/H 276 would update the definition of developmental disability to include all individuals with developmental disabilities" and noted that Massachusetts is among the more restrictive states. "The majority of states use the federal definition," he said.
John Ford of Neighborhood Legal Services and Jennifer Bertrand of the Massachusetts Developmental Disabilities Council recounted personal and client experiences illustrating how the narrower state definition can leave people without access to supports that aid independent living, employment and education. Bertrand shared a client's story of a college student with cerebral palsy who needs assistance with fine motor tasks and scribe services but faces barriers because of the state's current eligibility criteria.
Barbara L'Italien of Disability Law Center and Rick Glassman supported the change, saying focus should be on functional limitations and lifelong impact rather than specific diagnostic labels or IQ scores. "This bill really focuses on looking at what people need," L'Italien said.
Witnesses said adoption of the federal definition would not guarantee services for every person but would make more individuals eligible to be assessed for supports; any specific services would remain subject to appropriations and DDS prioritization.
No committee votes were taken. Proponents urged the committee to advance the bill so the legislature can consider the definition change alongside budget and programmatic decisions.
