Sumukha Terakanambi’s disability services waiver paid for the lift the Lakeville resident uses to get out of bed and the care that allows him to live in his family’s home.
For Steve Reinardy, whose eye disorder keeps him from driving, his waiver covers the transportation he needs to get to his job and doctor’s appointments.
Tim Gross has seen his son Ben, who has Down syndrome, develop life skills using waiver-funded training that allows him to remain in his own Duluth apartment.
They are among the Minnesotans pushing back against Gov. Tim Walz’s proposed measures to reduce planned increases in state spending on the Medicaid waivers that support tens of thousands of people with disabilities. The governor’s recent proposal, paired with fears over the Trump administration’s next steps on Medicaid, has many of the state’s most vulnerable residents and the people who care for them on edge.
“The uncertainty is incredible,” Gross said, who fears what the future holds for his son if government officials scale back services and he’s no longer around to help. “We have to count on decisions made in St. Paul and in D.C. that truly affect us immediately.”
Threats to Medicaid services have prompted a flurry of local and national action. Disability advocates are meeting to discuss the governor’s proposal and developing plans to push back, and service providers are sending messages urging lawmakers to oppose waiver spending cuts. Meanwhile, national advocacy groups are warily awaiting President Donald Trump’s next moves as U.S. House Republicans eye Medicaid cuts.
Whether Minnesota lawmakers will support the DFL governor’s proposed changes remains unclear. Senate Human Services Chair John Hoffman, DFL-Champlin, quickly decried Walz’s plan, saying it threatens to undermine the state’s progress in serving people with disabilities and aging residents.
“These measures do not align with the Minnesota way — a way that prioritizes compassion, equity, and support for those who need it most,“ Hoffman said in a statement. ”Balancing the state budget is a necessary responsibility, but it cannot be done at the expense of those who have no other safety net.”