These amendments/changes move Virginia in the wrong direction. They reduce hours, remove oversight, and make it harder for people to safely remain in their homes. The shift to a statewide broker model replaces real support with an administrative middleman.

From my perspective, this appears to mirror the national trend following Texas v. Kennedy, where states move toward looser, hands?off structures that look efficient on paper but leave people without the protections they need.  Even in light of the Texas v. Kennedy decision, federal funding flexibility should not become a factor that leads to reduced oversight or weakened community?based supports in Virginia, or realistically, in any state.

Under the current system, clients have monthly facilitator visits. Those facilitators have built trusted relationships with clients and families over time. The proposed shift to quarterly contact — along with replacing facilitators with brokers — removes consistent oversight and eliminates the personal connection that helps catch problems early and keeps people safe.

The proposed hour reductions, including the push toward a 56?hour soft cap, would force many families into reduced care or constant appeals, creating unsafe gaps in support.

These changes weaken stability, reduce accountability, and remove safeguards that keep individuals safe at home. Reduced hours and the loss of consistent oversight could result in the risk of institutionalization when supports are disrupted or become too limited to maintain safe living.

The people most affected were never notified. As a guardian, parent, and caregiver, I never received any communication about these proposed amendments/changes.  My focus is on caring for the person — not monitoring hidden policy updates we had no reason to expect.

None of these amendments/changes strengthen care or improve the waiver system. They should be rejected.