Back to Annual Meeting Page		American Public Health Association 133rd Annual Meeting & Exposition December 10-14, 2005 Philadelphia, PA

Abstract #106949

Micky Willmott, MA, Martin Kitchener, PhD, MBA, and Charlene Harrington, PhD. Department of Social & Behavioral Sciences, University of California San Francisco, 3333 California St, Suite 455, San Francisco, CA 94118, 415-502-4501, Micky.Wilmott@uscf.edu

The landmark 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Olmstead case held that unnecessary institutionalization of disabled people constitutes discrimination in violation of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ruling suggested that states demonstrate compliance with the ADA integration mandate by making ‘reasonable accommodations' to long-term care systems in order to extend access to home and community-based alternatives to nursing home care. Arising from consumers' frustration with state responses to Olmstead, lawsuits have been brought in many states alleging continued violation of the ADA community integration mandate. As a result, an important process has emerged of attempts to reform health policy through litigation.

This poster presents findings from an exploratory national study of litigation brought against state LTC administrations since 1999 that involve Olmstead related community integration complaints. From a systematic review of secondary sources and internet searches, details of 72 cases of this type were identified in 36 states (including one in Guam). Using a standardized analytical protocol, comparative features of each case were coded and recorded within a database. A descriptive qualitative analysis was then conducted to compare features of each case, including: date, state, population group(s) covered, primary complaint, and current status/outcome. The findings, presented in series of tables and graphs, reveal trends including: a concentration of cases in certain states (e.g., Pennsylvania had the most, with five lawsuits since 2000) and inter-state variations in the nature and outcomes of cases. We conclude by considering implications of these exploratory findings for policy and future research.

Learning Objectives: