Connecticut's $430-Per-Month 'Disability Penalty' Sparks Constitutional Lawsuit

In a crowded Hartford courtroom this past April, Laura DiErrico stood before a sea of reporters and disability advocates to share a painful truth: despite living on just $1,724 per month from Social Security Disability, she couldn't access Connecticut's Medicaid program because of discriminatory income limits targeting people with disabilities. Her story represents thousands of disabled Connecticut residents caught in what advocates now call the "disability penalty" – a systematic barrier that forces people with disabilities to live in deeper poverty than their non-disabled neighbors just to access basic healthcare.

The lawsuit filed against Connecticut's Department of Social Services reveals a stark disparity in the state's HUSKY Medicaid program. While non-disabled adults can earn up to $1,800 per month and still qualify for HUSKY A and D coverage, disabled residents and seniors are restricted to just $1,370 per month under HUSKY C – a difference of $430 that advocates argue violates Connecticut's constitutional guarantee of equal protection for people with disabilities.

The Constitutional Case Against Disability Discrimination

Connecticut's Constitution explicitly prohibits discrimination based on "physical or mental disability" in Article I, Section 20, making it one of the few states with such specific constitutional protections. The lawsuit, filed by Disability Rights Connecticut and Yale Law School's Medical Legal Partnership, argues that the state's own Medicaid structure violates this fundamental principle by imposing harsher financial requirements on the very population that typically faces higher healthcare costs and limited employment opportunities.

Sheldon Toubman, the lead attorney for Disability Rights Connecticut, emphasized that while it's not necessary to prove intentional discrimination for an equal protection violation, "that nevertheless is the case here." The complaint details how Connecticut's legislature actually passed a law in 2023 to eliminate this discrimination, but then reversed course in 2024 at the governor's urging, reinstating the lower income limits before they could take effect.

Asset Limits: Trapped in 1970s Poverty Standards

The discrimination extends beyond income limits to asset restrictions that haven't been updated since the 1970s. HUSKY C recipients face asset limits of just $1,600 for single individuals and $2,400 for married couples – amounts set nearly fifty years ago with no adjustment for inflation. In contrast, HUSKY A and D programs have no asset limits whatsoever, allowing non-disabled recipients to maintain savings while accessing healthcare benefits.

Kathy Flaherty, Executive Director of the Connecticut Legal Rights Project, highlighted the devastating impact of these outdated limits, explaining that disabled individuals are forced to spend down any modest savings they've accumulated throughout their working years. This creates what advocates describe as "enforced destitution" – a requirement that people with disabilities must remain in extreme poverty to access essential healthcare services that Medicare doesn't cover, including dental care, vision services, and long-term supports.

Real Stories Behind the Statistics

Laura DiErrico, diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2019, represents the human face of this constitutional challenge. As a single mother who previously relied on Medicaid while raising her son, she understood the program's importance when she moved back to Connecticut in 2020. Her MS diagnosis brought cognitive and physical changes that made typical office work impossible, leaving her dependent on Social Security Disability payments of $1,724 per month.

Initially, DiErrico qualified for HUSKY D coverage thanks to federal COVID-19 expansions, but lost that coverage when the expansions ended in 2023. Despite her low monthly income, she couldn't qualify for HUSKY C, leaving her dental care uncovered. She spent two years with painful and embarrassing dental issues before going into debt to finally address her oral health needs.

"It is essential to recognize that this is not just my story, it is the story of many individuals with disabilities who find themselves in similar situations or worse. We are not asking for special treatment for others to be denied care. Rather, we are advocating for fairness and the right to access the health care that we need to live with dignity and health."

The Medicare Gap Crisis

The lawsuit exposes a particularly cruel irony in Connecticut's system: people often lose Medicaid coverage precisely when they become disabled. As Yale Law student Laura Bairett explained, "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."

This creates a devastating healthcare gap for newly disabled individuals who rely on Medicare's limited coverage while losing access to Medicaid services that Medicare doesn't provide – including comprehensive dental care, vision services, hearing aids, non-emergency medical transportation, and most home health care services.

Breaking Down Connecticut's HUSKY System

Understanding the discrimination requires examining how Connecticut structures its Medicaid programs. The state operates four main HUSKY programs, each with different eligibility requirements and serving different populations.

Program	Population Served	Monthly Income Limit (Single)	Asset Limits
HUSKY A	Children, pregnant women, parents	$1,800	None
HUSKY C	Disabled adults, seniors	$1,370	$1,600 (single), $2,400 (couple)
HUSKY D	Low-income adults without children	$1,800	None

The disparity becomes even more pronounced when considering that people with disabilities typically face higher healthcare costs and more limited employment opportunities than the general population. Yet Connecticut's system requires them to live on significantly less income while maintaining virtually no assets to access the same healthcare benefits available to non-disabled residents at higher income levels.

Political Promises and Budget Realities

The discrimination wasn't accidental or hidden from policymakers. Representative Anne Hughes (D-Easton) captured the moral dimension of the issue at the April press conference: "We require people with disabilities to be extremely poor to quote-unquote deserve state-sponsored health care. That is wrong, it is immoral and it's left over from a legacy of dehumanization of people with disabilities."

The political history reveals a pattern of promises made and broken. In 2023, Connecticut's legislature passed comprehensive legislation to eliminate the income disparity by raising HUSKY C limits to match HUSKY D. The law would have taken effect in October 2024, finally ending decades of discrimination. However, the 2024 legislative session saw lawmakers reverse course "at the Governor's urging," repealing the anti-discrimination provisions before they could be implemented.

This reversal occurred despite Connecticut's precarious budget situation being well-known when the original legislation passed. Federal Medicaid cuts threatened to create gaps in services for vulnerable residents, making 2024 a particularly challenging year to expand eligibility. Yet advocates argue that constitutional rights shouldn't be subject to budget considerations, especially when the discrimination violates the state's own founding principles.

California's Success Story

Advocates point to California as proof that change is both possible and beneficial. Unlike Connecticut, California lacks any constitutional requirement for equal treatment of disabled people, yet the state chose to eliminate similar discriminatory income limits over four years ago, setting the same 138% of federal poverty level standard for all adults on Medicaid regardless of disability status.

California's experience demonstrates that states can address this discrimination without devastating budget impacts while improving health outcomes for disabled residents. The change expanded access to preventive care, reduced emergency room utilization, and helped people with disabilities maintain their health and independence in community settings rather than requiring more expensive institutional care.

Training Implications for State Agencies and Healthcare Organizations

This lawsuit highlights critical training needs for state agency staff, healthcare administrators, and direct service providers working with disabled populations. The case demonstrates how policy decisions at the state level create discriminatory barriers that frontline workers must navigate daily, often without understanding the constitutional and legal implications of these disparities.

State agency personnel need comprehensive training on constitutional equal protection requirements, particularly how seemingly neutral policies can create discriminatory impacts for protected populations. This includes understanding how income eligibility policies intersect with disability rights laws and the Americans with Disabilities Act's integration mandate, which requires services to be provided in the most integrated setting appropriate to individual needs.

Legal Precedent and National Implications

Connecticut's case represents more than a state-specific dispute – it could establish important precedent for disability rights nationwide. James Bhandary-Alexander, Legal Director of Yale's Medical Legal Partnership, expressed confidence in the legal foundation: "This doesn't seem like even a complicated enough issue for a law school exam" given Connecticut's explicit constitutional prohibition on disability discrimination.

The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief rather than monetary damages, asking the court to declare Connecticut's discriminatory income limits unconstitutional and order the state to equalize access to Medicaid regardless of disability status. This approach focuses on systemic change rather than individual compensation, potentially benefiting thousands of disabled Connecticut residents who currently face the "disability penalty."

Legal experts note that success in Connecticut could encourage similar challenges in other states with comparable discriminatory Medicaid structures. While Connecticut's constitutional language provides particularly strong protection for disabled individuals, federal equal protection arguments could apply more broadly, potentially creating national momentum for Medicaid reform.

The Path Forward: Justice Delayed But Not Denied

As Representative Hughes observed at the April press conference, "Justice always is forced, really, it's so reluctant. If we had empathy and out of the goodness of our hearts, we would have changed this long ago." The lawsuit represents disabled Connecticut residents' determination to achieve through the courts what political processes have failed to deliver – equal treatment under the law and dignified access to healthcare.

The case has already sparked renewed legislative interest, with disability advocates and lawmakers discussing comprehensive reforms that would address both income and asset limit disparities. However, advocates emphasize that they couldn't wait for another round of political promises that might be broken when budget pressures mount.

For healthcare organizations and state agencies, this lawsuit serves as a critical reminder that constitutional rights must be woven into policy development and implementation. The case demonstrates how seemingly neutral eligibility criteria can create discriminatory impacts that violate fundamental equal protection principles, particularly when they disproportionately affect protected populations who face systemic barriers to healthcare access.

The outcome of this case will determine whether Connecticut upholds its constitutional promise of equal protection or continues to enforce what advocates describe as a "legacy of dehumanization" that treats disabled residents as less deserving of healthcare access than their non-disabled neighbors. For the thousands of Connecticut residents caught in this discriminatory system, the stakes couldn't be higher – their health, dignity, and constitutional rights hang in the balance.