You Are Outraged. We Hear You. Here's a Way to Respond.

Many of you received an email this morning from DODD’s administrative rules coordinator attempting to “clarify” the proposed travel restriction rule, which DODD plans to revise and refile. We’ve heard from several of you already: frustrated, angry, and outraged by what you rightly see as gaslighting from a public agency.

We share your concerns. It is unacceptable for taxpayer dollars to be used to mislead the disability community, especially when many of the people affected by this rule are unable to read or fully interpret the policy for themselves.

We’ve drafted a respectful, firm response that you can send back to Administrative Rules Coordinator Becky Phillips to ensure your voice is heard. Feel free to copy, paste, and modify as needed, and thank you for continuing to stand up for the dignity and constitutional rights of all Ohioans.

Suggested response below:

Subject: Deep Concern About Misrepresentation of Travel Rule and Public Testimony

Dear Ms. Phillips,

I’m writing in response to your May 31 email regarding proposed rule 5123-9-08. I appreciate your acknowledgment of public testimony, but I was deeply disappointed and frankly alarmed by your mischaracterization of the rule and your attempt to downplay serious public concerns.

Let’s be clear: this rule does far more than “bring concepts together.” It introduces a 60-day limit on out-of-state travel for waiver recipients receiving services, a dangerous and unprecedented restriction in the state of Ohio. It gives entry-level Service and Support Administrators unchecked authority to approve or deny disabled people’s constitutional rights. And it was submitted to CMS for approval before the public ever had a chance to see it in full.

To claim this rule is not intended to “restrict an individual's right to travel” is both false and dangerous. The draft rule literally includes an entire section entitled “Extended travel limitations.” That means the rule limits travel for people who need waiver care services. It requires exception requests and opens the door to arbitrary denials, all while being enforced by a workforce that includes staff who have mockingly referred to those they serve as “greedy,” “lazy,” and “mental.”

Your suggestion that Ohio is being generous because other states impose even more restrictive policies is not a defense; it’s a moral failure. The fact that other states may be violating their citizens’ constitutional rights does not give Ohio permission to do the same. “It could be worse” is not a standard of ethical or constitutional governance.

You also cited participation from a “small workgroup” that included one person with a disability who receives waiver services. While this person’s input is important, it does not override the overwhelming outcry from advocates across the state who see this rule for what it is: a discriminatory policy that limits the constitutional rights of a vulnerable population. Ohioans with disabilities deserve broad, meaningful representation, not tokenism used to justify harmful policies.

Many Ohioans with intellectual disabilities cannot interpret this rule or even read your email. They rely on DODD officials to be truthful stewards of information. For you (in your email) and Director Hauck (in her public remarks) to misrepresent what’s plainly written in black and white is an abuse of public trust.

Taxpayer dollars should never be used to gaslight the disability community. I urge you to stop repeating misleading talking points, publicly correct the record, and take real action to withdraw this unconstitutional draft rule once and for all.

Respectfully,

[Your Name]