You need Javascript enabled for this to work10 Plus Years After the Olmstead Ruling: Progress, Problems and Opportunities.
Logo for Center for Personal Assistance Services New Browser Window, University of California, San Francisco  
Jump over main navigation bar to the sub navigation barHome (press control H in some browsers)Current directory is Need for PAS (press control N in some browsers)Home and Community PAS (press control C in some browsers)Workers and Caregivers (press control W in some browsers)Economics and Workplace PAS (press control E in some browsers)Emergency Preparedness (press control P in some browsers)PAS Users (press control U in some browsers) 
Jump over the sub navigation bar to the main body content





  Jump over the main body content to the main navigation bar
 

Printer-friendly page

Carlson, E., & Coffey, G. (2010, September). 10 Plus Years After the Olmstead Ruling: Progress, Problems and Opportunities. Washington, DC: National Senior Citizens Law Center. Retrieved September 29th, 2010 from http://www.thescanfoundat ion.org/sites/default/fil es/NSCLC_Olmstead.pdf

Abstract

Inside and outside government, there is now a widely held view that home and community-based services (HCBS) can better maintain the independence and dignity of persons needing long-term services and supports (LTSS). Consistent with this understanding, statistics show a significant percentage increase in older persons able to receive LTSS outside of nursing homes. Nonetheless, unnecessary institutionalization is still a routine problem for too many older adults and people with disabilities, especially those with lower incomes.

In 1999, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Olmstead v. L.C. that unnecessary institutionalization of people with disabilities is a type of discrimination prohibited by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A state government that operates its programs in a way that unnecessarily forces persons with disabilities to move into nursing homes or other institutions violates the ADA. Under the ADA, a state government is not required to make a "fundamental alteration" to a program to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability - but it can be required to make a "reasonable modification."

Obtain the Full Version