1. Historical Bipartisan Support for Medicaid Waivers - Medicaid waivers for individuals with developmental disabilities have traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support due to their role in keeping people out of institutions and in community-based settings. - Even during past Republican administrations, while broad Medicaid reforms have been proposed, waivers for the developmentally disabled have largely been protected. 2. Political Risk of Cutting Services to Vulnerable Populations - Cutting funding for individuals with developmental disabilities (IDD) is politically unpopular across party lines. Lawmakers from both parties understand that these cuts could lead to significant backlash from advocacy groups, families, and bipartisan constituents. - Many Republican legislators represent districts with rural or suburban populations that rely on Medicaid waivers for home- and community-based services (HCBS), making drastic cuts unlikely. 3. State-Level Control Over Medicaid Waivers - Medicaid waivers are administered at the state level, and many Republican-led states have expanded and protected waiver programs to support their own residents. - Even if federal funding is adjusted, states have mechanisms to redirect funds to ensure continued services, as cutting these programs would increase long-term costs by pushing individuals into institutional care. 4. Legal and Structural Protections - Medicaid waivers for developmental disabilities fall under federal protections, including: The Olmstead decision (1999), which mandates that individuals with disabilities have the right to receive care in the least restrictive setting.IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), which ties Medicaid services to special education funding. - Cutting these waivers could lead to legal challenges that make it difficult for lawmakers to follow through with severe reductions. 5. Recent Budget Negotiations Suggest a Focus Elsewhere - Recent Republican budget proposals have focused on work requirements and cost-saving reforms for Medicaid expansion (such as in non-disabled adult populations), rather than targeting individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). - The primary targets for cuts appear to be administrative spending and fraud prevention initiatives, not core waiver services.