FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 10, 2025
Connecticut’s Disparate Medicaid Eligibility Criteria Violates State Constitution, Discriminating Against Individuals with Disabilities;
Lawsuit Filed to End Discriminatory Income Eligibility Rules Reinstated at Governor’s Urging
Today, two disabled individuals unable to qualify for Medicaid because of disability discrimination by the State of Connecticut in its Medicaid eligibility criteria filed a state court complaint against the Department of Social Services for violating the State Constitution.
The plaintiffs allege that the application of a much lower income limit for disabled adults under the Medicaid program for disabled and elderly adults, known as HUSKY C ($1370/month for a single person), compared with non-disabled, non-elderly adults eligible for HUSKY A and D ($1800/month for a single person), violates the state’s Equal Protection Clause. That provision prohibits state discrimination based on “physical or mental disability.” (Article I, Section 20).
The plaintiffs note in their complaint that, while it is not necessary to establish an Equal Protection violation that the discrimination is intentional, that nevertheless is the case here. The complaint (in ¶¶ 46-52) explains how the legislature in 2023 passed a law which would end the long-standing discrimination in Medicaid income eligibility effective October 1, 2024, but that, in the 2024 legislative session, at the Governor’s urging, the legislature chose to undo this change before it even went into effect. As one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Gina Teixeira, explained, “this means the legislature last year knowingly chose to reinstate discrimination against disabled people.”
The primary reason the legislature chose to reinstate discrimination, despite a large surplus, was that the Governor has been opposed to bending the so-called “fiscal guardrails” to spend available funds which would have - once and for all - ended that discrimination. He therefore insisted last year that the law ending the disability discrimination, which would require those guardrails to be somewhat relaxed, be repealed - and the legislature complied despite being warned the discrimination violated the State Constitution.
Another one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, James Bhandary-Alexander, explained, citing Daly v. DelPonte, 225 Conn. 499, 515 (1993), that “Connecticut courts have concluded that the constitutional provision’s ‘protection for those possessing physical and mental disabilities identifies the members of this class as a group especially subject to discrimination and requires the application of the highest standard of review [strict scrutiny] to vindicate their constitutional rights.’ ” He said the courts have made clear that “the state’s desire to save money has never been held to satisfy this very high legal review standard.”
Discriminatory, Unconstitutional Harm to Individuals with Disabilities Detailed
While most of the affected people have access to Medicare, that federal program is very limited compared with Medicaid in certain ways that are critical to people with disabilities, such as having no coverage for long-term home-based care services, or dental, vision, hearing aid or medical transportation coverage. The complaint describes in detail how the plaintiffs have gone without these kinds of services and how one is deeply in debt, as a direct result of this denied coverage. (¶¶ 53-78) For example, Laura DiErrico has an income $354 per month in excess of the low HUSKY C limits. (¶62). “After falling and cracking her two front teeth in 2023, Ms. DiErrico needed extensive dental work. One of her teeth was repaired, and the other was replaced with a bridge. Ms. DiErrico quickly exhausted the dental benefit under her Medicare Advantage plan and had about a $4,000 dental bill remaining… Ms. DiErrico was forced to pay the large bill through a private lender, Care Credit. Her interest continues to accrue, as she has not been able to make the regular payments needed. She has received harassing phone calls over this nonpayment.” (¶¶ 65 and 66)
The other plaintiff, Frank Caggiano, who requires a hearing aid, “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.” (¶76)
One of the law student interns representing the plaintiffs, Laura Bairett, noted that a Medicaid recipient who meets the eligibility criteria for HUSKY D but who then becomes disabled, and as a result becomes eligible for Medicare, “will at that point no longer be eligible for HUSKY D and will not be able to stay on Medicaid if they do not meet the much more restrictive income limits for disabled people under HUSKY C. So, under the state’s discriminatory policy, people can lose access to essential Medicaid services which Medicare does not cover as a result of becoming disabled.”
Connecticut Can – and Should – Act Now to End the Unconstitutional Discrimination
Plaintiffs’ attorney Sheldon Toubman of Disability Rights Connecticut acknowledged the case is being filed while drastic cuts to Medicaid are being proposed on the federal level. He explained: “the disability discrimination being challenged in this lawsuit has been present for many years and we were forced to bring this case now because officials on the state level have failed to take action - or, even worse, have affirmatively chosen to reinstate the discrimination - causing serious harm to our clients.”
Attorney Toubman added: “While state officials have admirably spoken out against the proposed devastating Medicaid cuts on the national level, they could be equally forceful in opposing the current state discrimination under the Medicaid program as CT officials have chosen to run it, having nothing to do with federal requirements. They could right now do what California did over four years ago and set the income limit the same for all adults on Medicaid regardless of disability.” He also noted: “Unlike Connecticut, California has no constitutional requirement of equal treatment for disabled people, but officials there nonetheless made this change to address the same discrimination.”
Connecticut has also long been discriminating against people with disabilities in terms of asset eligibility for Medicaid. Kathy Flaherty, the Executive Director of the CT Legal Rights Project, said “there is a very low asset limit of just $1600 for disabled people on HUSKY C, while, under HUSKY A and D, non-disabled adults have no asset limits at all. As with the income eligibility discrimination, there is no possible justification for this discriminatory treatment, which ensures that people with disabilities can’t save anything for an emergency like an expensive appliance repair.”
Legislation Should be Expanded Now to End Discriminatory Asset and Income Eligibility Rules
Ms. Flaherty said that there are bills currently pending before the Connecticut legislature that would address asset discrimination, which California also ended last year, but “none of these bills would end the unfair asset test imposed on them until several years from now and the bills do not address - in any way - the income eligibility discrimination which individuals cannot escape.”
The complaint filed today is available here. The plaintiffs are represented by Disability Rights Connecticut and the Medical Legal Partnership at Yale Law School, which seek an injunction to stop the ongoing discrimination affecting thousands of people in Connecticut.
###
Media Contact:
Bernard Kavaler, for Disability Rights Connecticut
860-729-3021, bernard@express-strategies.com
