The Arc of Indiana & Self-Advocates of Indiana
Disability Policy Issues Questionnaire
District 9
Brad Mayer – Democrat
Question 1 – Would you support federal legislation to make Home and Community-Based Services a mandatory Medicaid benefit? Why or why not?
Response: Along with many disability advocacy groups, federal agencies, and federal lawmakers, I strongly support the push to make HCBS a mandatory benefit. I see this as a way to achieve several critical outcomes outlined by those groups:
- Eliminating Massive Waiting Lists: Because HCBS is optional, states rely on capped waiver programs to limit enrollment. This has trapped over 600,000 older adults and people with disabilities on waiting lists, with national average wait times spanning 37 to 40 months. Making the benefit mandatory would eliminate these caps and require states to provide prompt care to anyone who qualifies.
- Safeguarding Civil Rights and Independence: The current structure forces individuals into nursing homes against their will simply because it is the only guaranteed option. Advancing HCBS as a mandatory service aligns federal funding with the Supreme Court’s landmark 1999 Olmstead decision.
- Lowering Long-Term Government Costs: Studies indicate that providing care at home is significantly more cost-effective than funding a bed in an institution. Shifting the standard Medicaid framework toward mandatory home care allows states to allocate resources more efficiently, protecting public budgets as the American population ages.
- Protecting Care Packages from State Budget Cuts: Indiana is a perfect example, when states face budget shortfalls, HCBS are often the first targeted for reduction. Making it mandatory protects personal care aides and respite care from budget cuts. 5. Strengthening Direct Service Professionals: Legislation to make HCBS mandatory universally includes components to address the critical shortage of direct care professionals. By introducing dedicated federal matching funds and grants, it provides for a livable, competitive wage and better job stability.
Question 2 – Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Do you believe the current SSI resource limits should be increased, indexed for inflation, or otherwise reformed? Why or why not?
Response: I firmly believe increasing and indexing of SSI resource limits is vital because the current caps—frozen at $2,000 for individuals since 1989—force vulnerable Americans to choose between essential income and basic financial security. By punishing recipients for saving for unforeseen emergencies, car repairs, or rental deposits, these outdated limits effectively trap people with disabilities and low-income older adults in deep, systemic poverty. Raising and indexing these limits for inflation aligns the program with modern economic realities, encourages workforce participation by removing the “savings penalty,” and dramatically reduces the immense administrative costs the Social Security Administration currently wastes on auditing micro-assets.
About SSI
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) provides a modest cash benefit for low-income individuals who are elderly, blind, or have disabilities. While costs for basic necessities have increased over the years, SSI’s asset limits have not kept pace with inflation and have remained largely unchanged since 1989. An individual on SSI generally cannot have more than $2,000 in countable resources at any time. Married couples are only allowed $3,000. Resources that count towards the SSI asset limit include cash, money in bank accounts, stocks and bonds, and certain other assets.
Question 3 – Direct Support Professional (DSP) Crisis
What federal policies would you support to strengthen the Direct Support Professional workforce, including recruitment, retention, compensation, and support for family caregivers?
Response: My platform strengthens the Direct Support Professional (DSP) workforce primarily by targeting the root economic drivers of the caregiving crisis through robust labor and healthcare reforms. By advocating for a $20 federal minimum wage and expanded overtime protections, my policies directly address the low compensation that fuels high DSP turnover and recruitment shortages.
Furthermore, my support for Medicare for All and increased standard tax deductions would provide guaranteed health coverage and financial relief to undercompensated care workers, while my opposition to Medicaid cuts aims to protect the critical federal funding that sustains disability services and family caregiving infrastructure.
And finally, I wholeheartedly support family caregivers. My policies address the crushing financial and emotional strains of caregiving through major structural reforms. For example, Medicare for All would universally cover home care, therapy, and respite services, completely eliminating the risk of medical debt or denied insurance claims for families. Additionally, by advocating to raise the standard tax deduction to $20,000 and vocally opposing any cuts to Medicaid infrastructure, my platform aims to provide immediate financial relief to working households while dismantling the administrative hurdles that block families from accessing necessary care.
About the DSP Crisis
Direct Support Professionals (DSPs) provide essential support that allows individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities to live, work, and participate in their communities. However, the profession continues to experience chronic workforce shortages driven by low wages, limited benefits, and high turnover. Nationally, DSP turnover exceeds 40% annually, and many providers report vacancy rates that leave critical positions unfilled. These workforce shortages contribute to service disruptions, increased caregiver strain, longer waiting lists for waivers, and reduced access to Home and Community Based Services (HCBS).
Question 4 – Seclusion and Restraint
What would you do to address issues of seclusion and restraint in schools for students with disabilities?
Response: I oppose the use of harmful seclusion and restraint practices in schools and advocate for stronger federal oversight to protect students with disabilities from these trauma-inducing interventions. As part of my broader public education platform, I have actively criticized historical federal decisions that weakened the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), arguing that students desperately need robust protections from discrimination, racial harassment, and seclusion and restraint. Rather than relying on physical management or isolation, we need to emphasize tackling the root systemic issues by fully funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and reducing the high workloads that drive staff burnout. By addressing severe staffing shortages and providing educators with the resource networks they need, I would support shifting school environments away from punitive containment methods toward trauma-informed care and restorative practices.
About Seclusion and Restraint
Seclusion and restraint are crisis intervention practices used in some schools across the nation. Seclusion generally involves involuntarily confining a student alone in a room or area from which the student is physically prevented from leaving. Restraint may involve physical, mechanical, or chemical interventions that restrict a student’s movement.
Students with disabilities are disproportionately subjected to seclusion and restraint practices. Disability advocates have raised concerns regarding safety, trauma, transparency, accountability, and the use of these interventions when less restrictive alternatives may be available.
Question 5 – Housing
What federal policies would you support to expand safe, affordable, accessible, and integrated housing opportunities for people with disabilities?
Response: I support expanding safe, affordable, and accessible integrated housing for people with disabilities by targeting corporate landlords, strengthening civil rights enforcement, and boosting federal assistance. I oppose large-scale institutional buyouts of residential properties to keep scattered-site neighborhood housing affordable, while advocating for fully funding federal civil rights divisions to strictly enforce the Fair Housing Act (FHA) against discrimination. Additionally, my platform aligns with expanding HUD Section 811 housing vouchers for low-income tenants with disabilities, implementing a federal tenant right to counsel to prevent homelessness, and raising asset caps so individuals with disabilities can build savings without losing their critical housing and Medicaid benefits.
About Housing
People with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) face a housing crisis, with many contributing factors, such as a serious lack of safe, affordable, accessible and integrated housing, and significant housing-related discrimination. Access to stable housing is essential to community integration, employment, health, and quality of life.
Question 6 – What actions would you take to improve the availability, accessibility, reliability, and affordability of transportation options for people with disabilities?
Response: I would address transit accessibility by prioritizing major federal investments in public infrastructure and championing working-class economic relief. To ensure reliable travel for people with disabilities, I would advocate to aggressively fund the modernization of public transit systems, remove rigid regional service boundaries, and ensure strict ADA enforcement to eliminate architectural barriers. Recognizing that an unexpected financial emergency can derail a household’s stability, I have been focused on eliminating transportation-related insecurity by fighting for a $20 federal minimum wage and an increased $20,000 standard tax deduction. These economic policies aim to leave more money in families’ pockets to absorb the high cost of modifying personal vehicles, paying for rideshare services, or managing household expenses while living independently in the community.
About Transportation
People with IDD lack sufficient access to reliable, accessible, and safe modes of public and private transportation. Every mode of transportation, including air, water, road, rail, and even pedestrian transportation, presents barriers for individuals with IDD. These barriers prevent people with IDD from meaningful participation in everyday activities that promote high-quality community living experiences.
Reliable and accessible transportation is essential for people with disabilities to access employment, education, health care, community activities, and other opportunities. Transportation limitations can significantly restrict independence and community participation.