What's old is new again: Regulating community services for people with disabilities: a promise fulfilled or a barrier to appropriate services?

This is a post from The DD News Blog for August 12, 2018. Not much has changed since then, with the exception of a worldwide pandemic that killed over a million people in the US and revealed serious inadequacies in the country's healthcare system. It also shined a light on the heroics of healthcare workers on the front lines of the pandemic, who, at first had the admiration and respect of the public. Later, they suffered abuse from the misdirected anger of a portion of the public stirred up by conspiracy theories about the virus and vaccines. The system of care for people with I/DD and their families also suffered with programs closing, some temporarily, but others permanently. Severe work shortages, especially among direct service professionals, hampered an already distressed system, seemingly on the verge of collapse. We seem to be back, but not quite, to where we were when the whole thing began. 

This is a good place to start, heading into a new year with the same old controversies that must be resolved if we are going to rebuild a fair system that includes recognition of the full range of people served and the diversity of needs.

*********************************

Sunday, August 12, 2018

In 2014, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued “the Settings Rule” as an attempt to regulate how and where Medicaid-funded Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) are provided in community settings to people with disabilities. Although the settings rule is promoted as a policy of liberation to bring about “true” integration and inclusion of people with disabilities in community settings, the corollary to that is the assertion that the rule will free up funding to be redistributed, first by closing programs that some advocates argue no one wants or needs, and then to pay for services that the same advocates claim are "truly" inclusive.

Many I/DD advocacy groups, most notably those receiving federal funding under the federal Developmental Disabilities Act, oppose all “congregate” programs that serve more than 3 or 4 people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) together. Rather than emphasizing the individual right to appropriate services and the requirement that “a public entity shall administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities…” [emphasis added], many advocates promoting the Settings Rule have focused mostly on closing programs, thereby eliminating them as a choice for those who still want and need them.

To what extent is implementation of the Settings Rule improving the lives of people with I/DD? Or is it just an excuse to reduce or eliminate programs for people with the highest support needs in hopes that others can benefit from the redistribution of precious Medicaid dollars?  Is it realistic to expect that the supposed cost-savings will pay for more and better services in the community? From the perspective of people with I/DD and their families who are losing programs they have relied on for years, the Settings Rule is seen as an excuse to de-fund needed services.

Judging from the promises made over many decades from advocates and government agencies, that closing institutions would pay for more and better services in the community, it is highly doubtful that removing people from institutions (or from settings that are too "institutional in nature” under the Settings Rule) will generate significant savings to pay for adequate services for everyone else.

As advocates and government agencies pursue their dream of closing all institutions, as well as eliminating specialized group settings for people with disabilities, they avoid the obvious question of how much more money must be put into the system to meet the needs of people with I/DD and where will it come from? It means confronting politically unpopular ideas, at least unpopular with most current elected officials, such as boosting Medicaid funding to pay for more and better services. Efforts to stabilize the workforce of direct service providers by providing them with a living wage and better working conditions and linking the funding of services with needs established by well-written individual service plans could improve both the quality of services and accountability to people with disabilities and to taxpayers.

This dilemma - justifying program closures with promises of future savings to pay for community services - was recognized by a fervent proponent of deinstitutionalization Sam Bagenstos, a former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Obama Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and a key litigator in deinstitutionalization cases.  [He currently serves as general counsel of the US Department of Health and Human Services and is on leave from the University of Michigan Law School] In a 2010 Cardozo Law Review article, “The Past and Future of Deinstitutionalization Litigation”, Bagenstos admits that closing institutions has not resulted in sufficient services in the community to allow people with psychiatric and intellectual and developmental disabilities to flourish.

This is an excerpt from a 2013 article from VOR , “Will it be different this time? Deinstitutionalization’s Past: A Reason to Pause and Reconsider”:

First, Bagenstos argues that one measure of the success of deinstitutionalization is the sheer numbers of people with I/DD who have been deinstitutionalized and the numbers of institutions that have been closed since 1967:

"[D]einstitutionalization advocates have essentially won the old battles for the closing and downsizing of large state institutions for people with psychiatric and developmental disabilities . . . the population of state institutions now stands at approximately 16% of its peak, the population of state and local psychiatric hospitals stands at approximately 9% of its peak, and these numbers continue to decrease."

Bagenstos goes on to admit, however, that the political alliance between deinstitutionalization advocates and fiscal conservatives meant certain failure for the advocates’ second goal, “to develop an array of services and supports in the community to enable people with psychiatric disabilities or intellectual/developmental disabilities to flourish.”

It should not be surprising that the coalition of deinstitutionalization advocates and fiscal conservatives largely achieved their goal of closing and downsizing institutions and that deinstitutionalization advocates were less successful in achieving their goal of developing community services.

Even if some deinstitutionalization advocates were initially unaware that they had entered into a “devil’s bargain” with fiscal conservatives, unconscionably, closure efforts continued even after it became apparent that widespread tragedies were befalling fragile individuals with I/DD developmental disabilities in inadequate community settings.

Supporters of the HCBS Settings Rule seem to be making their promises of improved services and better lives for people with disabilities contingent on the idea that savings from the closure and elimination of specialized congregate (group) settings in the community will result in the redistribution of funds. It is politically easier for advocates to call for the closure of programs that do not meet their criteria of “true” integration and inclusion than to confront the reality that the community system of care for people with I/DD is underfunded and to a large extent broken. Many of the organizations promoting their interpretation of the Settings Rule also get a significant amount of funding from government agencies that fund programs under the DD Act. They know better than to bite the hand that feeds them by advocating for politically difficult but necessary solutions to the crisis in community care.

*************************

See also,

“Will it be different this time? Deinstitutionalization’s Past: A Reason to Pause and Reconsider” from VOR, 2013, including footnotes and references.

"What does the ADA Integration Mandate really mean?", The DD Newsblog, 4/10/16

Samuel R. Bagenstos, The Past and Future of Deinstitutionalization Litigation, 34 Cardoza L. Rev. 1 (2012)

VOR Comments on proposed rules on Discrimination in Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act of 1973

The Department of Health and Human Services has issued a proposed rule "Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Health and Human Service Programs or Activities", intended to update, clarify, and strengthen the implementing regulation for Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 

VOR contends that the policies of HHS, notably the actions taken over the years by the Administration for Community Living and several of the organizations they subsidize (including State P&As [a.k.a. Disability Rights] and DD Councils, University Centers for Excellence, and the National Disability Rights Network) have regularly committed acts of discrimination against those with the most severe and profound intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families.

Below is the text of the letter to HHS:

To: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights

Proposed new implementing regulations on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973: Non-discrimination on the basis of disability in Health and Human Services programs or activities.

VOR – A Voice of Reason advocates for a full continuum of care and a full array of residential services and employment opportunities for all people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and/or autism. We would like to remind HHS of the broad diversity that characterizes the individuals who make up this population, from those who need some assistance to function in society to those who cannot survive without 24 hour around-the-clock assistance.

For the past 25 years, HHS has pursued “inclusion for all” policies that VOR believes have left behind the most disadvantaged members of this community. Before you take another step to dismantle more of these programs, we would urge you to review the purposes of the ADA, the Olmstead decision and the real-world effects on the most vulnerable population that we believe has been demonstrably hurt and even died as a result of these policies. [Some disability organizations call for sweeping changes to close all residential programs and services that provide care in congregate settings serving more that 3 or 4 people with disabilities.] We urge you not to just count the number of large facilities closed and people moved into the community, but to assess whether their needs are being met, whether there are sufficient well-trained staff and the overall the quality of their lives, including the frequency of abuse and neglect and the mortality rates relative to their former homes.

The ADA recognized the harm that our society had done by institutionalizing people who were “different” and called for giving them opportunities to participate in mainstream activities. Olmstead properly implemented that policy by permitting two individuals who wished to leave an institution and move into a less restrictive environment to do so, recognizing that institutional care was, by definition, segregated care. At the same time, Justice Ginsburg recognized that the I/DD population varied widely and that, for some people, an institution was the least restrictive environment.

Since enactment of the ADA, government policy has helped thousands of people who were capable of living and prospering in the broader community to leave institutions and lead a more productive and filling life. The DD System overseen by HHS has played a major role s in helping people who seek care in less restrictive environments to transition into Home- and Community-Based Services (HCBS) settings or receive more at-home or own-home supplemental services. We applaud the success of these programs. At the same time, we have been concerned that this movement has ignored the reality that Justice Ginsburg recognized that some people can benefit most from institutional care and that ideological blinders have eroded another key component of the DD System – intermediate care facilities for people with intellectual disabilities (ICF or ICF/IID).

Part of the premise for pursuing the closure of ICFs has been the usually unspoken view that parents who choose ICF care for their loved ones are not acting in their best interest. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Being the parent or sibling of a child with severe or profound intellectual disability or autism presents a lifetime of tremendous challenges. Aside from the daily challenges posed by the child her/himself, one of the most difficult challenges is navigating the DD System. Parents and guardians try to make informed choices from a limited set of imperfect options. Most families’ first choice is to have their child live at home. As the child ages and new challenges emerge, the parents have to re-assess those options, often choosing a small privately operated group home. If and when the group home system fails to meet their child’s needs, they usually seek a higher level of care in a larger congregate setting. Unfortunately, our system usually makes this difficult decision even more difficult to realize. Federal and state policies favoring HCBS care over the years have reduced the number of available beds in ICFs and created a two-tiered system, favoring HCBS funding and decreasing funding for the ICF system. While many proponents of HCBS’ inclusionary policies see this as progress, the families that rely on ICF services feel they have been victims of discrimination by their own community and by the very systems that have been put in place to serve them.

ICFs are not for everyone. Most people do benefit from some form of HCBS service. But not everyone. Larger congregate care facilities offer an economy of scale, allowing them to have 24/7 nursing, doctors on campus Monday – Friday and on call nights and weekends, dental clinics, psychiatric services and behavioral specialists, physical therapy, music therapy, swimming, and other services and amenities, most of which cannot be offered in a small group home. ICFs are more highly regulated by CMS and certification is far tougher than it is for HCBS services. Also, ICFs are required to offer active treatment, which may or may not be offered in group homes, but is not required. For people whose existential needs exceed their desire for acceptance by the non-disabled community, ICFs are essential.

Section 504 prohibits discriminatory acts in health care and human services, including denying qualified individuals the opportunity to participate in or benefit from federally funded programs and services. ICFs are federally approved, federally funded residential facilities. Many states have closed admission to these facilities, or ceased to create new opportunities to receive care in these facilities in favor of moving individuals to HCBS services. We contend that Section 504 must protect the right to care in ICF settings as well as in HCBS settings.

This discrimination has become accepted by all but those who need this level of care. The governors of several states have closed ICFs based on the biases of those who portray the ID/A population as a monolithic group that always benefits from community living. Presidential administrations have endorsed this ideology. The Department of Justice, too, has brought lawsuits, closing facilities for not meeting these arbitrary standards.

The bias in favor of HCBS care was memorialized on April 18, 2012, when the Administration on Developmental Disabilities and other agencies were combined into the Administration for Community Living (ACL). Over the past decade, ACL has pursued an ideology of “everyone does better in the community” that ignores the fact that many of those with severe and profound I/DD and autism cannot. As a result of this directive, ACL has funneled millions of dollars into state DD Councils and state Protection and Advocacy agencies (P&A). These agencies have targeted ICFs, launching far more on-site investigations in these facilities than in group home environments, and using federal funds to initiate class action suits aimed at closing ICFs (Illinois, Ligas v. Maram, and Ohio, Ball v. Kasich to name just two. In both of these cases, the court found for the families defending ICF care, but at a huge personal cost to the families involved).

In addition to funding the National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities (NACDD) and the National Disability Rights Network (NDRN), the ACL provides funding for the Association of University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD). The AUCD conducts studies on matters affecting people with I/DD and autism, but usually limits the topics of their studies to those which will point to successful outcomes of programs initiated by the ACL. They have not conducted studies on mortality rates of people who have been forced out of their ICF homes of thirty or forty years when state governors have acted, either independently or at the direction of the state P&A or DOJ lawsuits, to close these facilities. They have not attempted to document the outcomes of people who have been forced out of sheltered workshops and 14(c) employment opportunities and wind up in day programs with no work, no pay, and no options, and forced into an even more segregated community with a cohort of more severely disabled individuals.

Discrimination against the neediest people with ID/A also applies to employment opportunities. Employment facilities licensed under provisions of Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, aka sheltered workshops, have been under attack by many of the same groups that advocate for the closure of ICFs. Without these programs, most of those who participate in them would be left without daytime activities as the reality is that they cannot perform to a level that warrants paying them the minimum wage. Ideological dogma cannot change reality. Despite the fact that these are voluntary programs, and the fact that they are enthusiastically approved by a vast majority of those who participate in them (97%), non-participants with high acuity, non-intellectual disabilities, federal and state agencies, and federal and state legislators have been calling for these programs to be phased out and eliminated. Furthermore, we would contend that the states that have ended their 14(c) programs have already committed discriminatory acts against people with intellectual disabilities and autism, by denying qualified individuals the opportunity to participate in or benefit from federally funded programs, services, or other benefits. If we are indeed to rectify this discrimination, should we not insist that those states re-open access to 14(c) programs?

The normalization of these discriminatory policies by HHS also gives license to the Congress to enact legislation that further discriminates against the neediest component of the ID/A population. The continuing enactment of legislation that either increases funding for HCBS services only or establishes a favorable funding formula for those services instead of ICF services is yet another way that HHS is complicit in undermining services for those who need them the most. Advocating and supporting these discriminatory policies gut a federal program that remains on the books and provides valuable and often essential service. At the same time, it has not met its practical goals – to provide more money and better services for people who reside in HCBS facilities. It is past time for HHS to return to the basics of the ADA and Olmstead – to insure that individuals with ID can choose where they wish to live and to advocate for what is best for the individuals, as determined by them and their families and guardians, not by lawyers and professional advocates.

The Supreme Court’s 1999 decision in Olmstead is often cited as a mandate for inclusion by self-advocates, well-endowed advocacy organizations, and government agencies. As indicated above, that is not what the decision says. Olmstead protects choice in its three-prong test and specifically acknowledges the need for “institutional” care, i.e. intermediate care facilities, in some circumstances. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg cited an amicus from VOR in her decision, stating, “Each disabled person is entitled to treatment in the most integrated setting possible for that person—recognizing that, on a case-by-case basis, that setting may be in an institution.” [1]
The Court was very clear that Olmstead was not to be viewed as a one-dimensional “inclusion mandate”, recognizing the need for States to maintain a range of facilities for the diverse needs of persons with developmental disabilities:

"Unjustified isolation, we hold, is properly regarded as discrimination based on disability. But we recognize, as well, the States' need to maintain a range of facilities for the care and treatment of persons with diverse mental disabilities, and the States' obligation to administer services with an even hand." [2]

“We emphasize that nothing in the ADA or its implementing regulations condones termination of institutional settings for persons unable to handle or benefit from community settings. . . Nor is there any federal requirement that community - based treatment be imposed on patients who do not desire it." [3]

"[U]nder Title II of the ADA, States are required to provide community-based treatment for persons with mental disabilities [1] when the State's treatment professionals determine that such placement is appropriate, [2] the affected persons do not oppose such treatment, and [3] the placement can be reasonably accommodated , taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with mental disabilities." [4]

"As already observed [by the majority], the ADA is not reasonably read to impel States to phase out institutions, placing patients in need of close care at risk. . . Some individuals . . . may need institutional care from time to time 'to stabilize acute psychiatric symptoms’. . . For other individuals, no placement outside the institution may ever be appropriate...for these persons, institutional settings are needed and must remain available." [5]

To be clear, we understand that we are asking the very agencies that created these policies and discriminated against those with the most severe and profound levels of I/DD and autism to cease these discriminatory practices. But, before you move further down this path, we ask you to look at our families and our loved ones through our eyes for a few moments:

Having a child with a severe or profound intellectual disability or autism involves a lifetime of extremely difficult choices. Our families ask for your help and support in making the best choices, from a full range of high-quality options, not from a rigid ideology that does not comport with reality. We ask for this support from those in government who oversee the DD system and provide those services, and from the community of people with I/DD and autism and their families, who should be the first to empathize with our challenges and provide emotional support. It’s time we end the discrimination against those with the most severe intellectual and developmental disabilities and autism. These ideals should be at the heart of any re-assessment of Section 504.

---------------------------------
[1] Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581, at 605
[2] ibid, at 597
[3] ibid, at 601-602
[4] ibid, at 607
[5] ibid, at 604-605

Regulating community services for people with disabilities: a promise fulfilled or a barrier to appropriate services?

In 2014, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued “the Settings Rule” as an attempt to regulate how and where Medicaid-funded Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) are provided in community settings to people with disabilities. Although the settings rule is promoted as a policy of liberation to bring about “true” integration and inclusion of people with disabilities in community settings, the corollary to that is the assertion that the rule will free up funding to be redistributed, first by closing programs that some advocates argue no one wants or needs, and then to pay for services that the same advocates claim are "truly" inclusive.

Many IDD advocacy groups, most notably those receiving federal funding under the federal Developmental Disabilities Act, oppose all “congregate” programs that serve more than 3 or 4 people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) together. Rather than emphasizing the individual right to appropriate services and the requirement that “a public entity shall administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities…” [emphasis added], many advocates promoting the Settings Rule have focused mostly on closing programs, thereby eliminating them as a choice for those who still want and need them. 

To what extent is implementation of the Settings Rule improving the lives of people with IDD? Or is it just an excuse to reduce or eliminate programs for people with the highest support needs in hopes that others can benefit from the redistribution of precious Medicaid dollars?  Is it realistic to expect that the supposed cost-savings will pay for more and better services in the community? From the perspective of people with IDD and their families who are losing programs they have relied on for years, the Settings Rule is seen as an excuse to de-fund needed services. 

Judging from the promises made over many decades from advocates and government agencies, that closing institutions would pay for more and better services in the community, it is highly doubtful that removing people from institutions (or from settings that are too "institutional in nature” under the Settings Rule) will generate significant savings to pay for adequate services for everyone else. 

As advocates and government agencies pursue their dream of closing all institutions, as well as eliminating specialized group settings for people with disabilities, they avoid the obvious question of how much more money must be put into the system to meet the needs of people with IDD and where will it come from? It means confronting politically unpopular ideas, at least unpopular with most current elected officials, such as boosting Medicaid funding to pay for more and better services. Efforts to stabilize the workforce of direct service providers by providing them with a living wage and better working conditions and linking the funding of services with needs established by well-written individual service plans could improve both the quality of services and accountability to people with disabilities and to taxpayers.

This dilemma - justifying program closures with promises of future savings to pay for community services - was recognized by a fervent proponent of deinstitutionalization Sam Bagenstos, a former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Obama Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and a key litigator in deinstitutionalization cases. [This is the same Sam Bagenstos who is running for the Michigan Supreme Court in the November 2018 election.] In a 2010 Cardozo Law Review article, “The Past and Future of Deinstitutionalization Litigation”, Bagenstos admits that closing institutions has not resulted in sufficient services in the community to allow people with psychiatric and intellectual and developmental disabilities to flourish.

This is an excerpt from a 2013 article from VOR , “Will it be different this time? Deinstitutionalization’s Past: A Reason to Pause and Reconsider”:

First, Bagenstos argues that one measure of the success of deinstitutionalization is the sheer numbers of people with I/DD who have been deinstitutionalized and the numbers of institutions that have been closed since 1967:

"[D]einstitutionalization advocates have essentially won the old battles for the closing and downsizing of large state institutions for people with psychiatric and developmental disabilities . . . the population of state institutions now stands at approximately 16% of its peak, the population of state and local psychiatric hospitals stands at approximately 9% of its peak, and these numbers continue to decrease."

Bagenstos goes on to admit, however, that the political alliance between deinstitutionalization advocates and fiscal conservatives meant certain failure for the advocates’ second goal, “to develop an array of services and supports in the community to enable people with psychiatric disabilities or intellectual/developmental disabilities to flourish.” 

It should not be surprising that the coalition of deinstitutionalization advocates and fiscal conservatives largely achieved their goal of closing and downsizing institutions and that deinstitutionalization advocates were less successful in achieving their goal of developing community services.

Even if some deinstitutionalization advocates were initially unaware that they had entered into a “devil’s bargain” with fiscal conservatives, unconscionably, closure efforts continued even after it became apparent that widespread tragedies were befalling fragile individuals with I/DD developmental disabilities in inadequate community settings. 

Supporters of the HCBS Settings Rule seem to be making their promises of improved services and better lives for people with disabilities contingent on the idea that savings from the closure and elimination of specialized congregate (group) settings in the community will result in the redistribution of funds. It is politically easier for advocates to call for the closure of programs that do not meet their criteria of “true” integration and inclusion than to confront the reality that the community system of care for people with I/DD is underfunded and to a large extent broken. Many of the organizations promoting their interpretation of the Settings Rule also get a significant amount of funding from government agencies that fund programs under the DD Act. They know better than to bite the hand that feeds them by advocating for politically difficult but necessary solutions to the crisis in community care.

*************************

See also, 

“Will it be different this time? Deinstitutionalization’s Past: A Reason to Pause and Reconsider” from VOR, 2013, including footnotes and references.

"What does the ADA Integration Mandate really mean?", The DD Newsblog, 4/10/16

VOR documentation of "Widespread Abuse, Neglect and Death in Small Settings Serving People with Intellectual Disabilities - 2015 to Present" 

Samuel R. Bagenstos, The Past and Future of Deinstitutionalization Litigation, 34 Cardoza L. Rev. 1 (2012)

What does the ADA "Integration Mandate" really mean?

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in State and local government services. Federal policy on the provision of services and benefits to people with disabilities is far more flexible and less restrictive than many advocates of full community inclusion are willing to admit. There are no mandates that prohibit particular settings or services for individuals with disabilities in general, and the needs and choice of the individual are a primary consideration.

Here is the link to § 35.130 of ADA regulations on "General prohibitions against discrimination" that describe requirements for State and local governments in providing services to people with disabilities.

Below are some of the requirements that may at first seem contradictory, but are written to assure that individual needs take precedence over general presumptions and bias based on preconceived ideas of what individuals are capable or not capable of doing as a class:

Paragraph (b) (1) (iv): A public entity, in providing any aid, benefit, or service, may not, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, on the basis of disability…

Provide different or separate aids, benefits, or services to individuals with disabilities or to any class of individuals with disabilities than is provided to others unless such action is necessary to provide qualified individuals with disabilities with aids, benefits, or services that are as effective as those provided to others;

Paragraph (b)(2): A public entity may not deny a qualified individual with a disability the opportunity to participate in services, programs, or activities that are not separate separate or different, despite the existence of permissibly separate or different programs or activities.
 
Paragraph (d): A public entity shall administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.

Paragraph (e): Nothing in this part shall be construed to require an individual with a disability to accept an accommodation, aid, service, opportunity, or benefit provided under the ADA or this part which such individual chooses not to accept….
  
An analysis of the regulations discusses requirements that allow for both the effective provision of services and choice, as well as assuring that individuals are not restricted from equal participation in a public entity’s programs or activities. Page 193 of the regulations includes an analysis that clarifies the meaning of these important paragraphs:

Paragraph (b)(1)(iv) permits the public entity to develop separate or different aids, benefits, or services when necessary to provide individuals with disabilities with an equal opportunity to participate in or benefit from the public entity’s programs or activities, but only when necessary to ensure that the aids, benefits, or services are as effective as those provided to others.

[This] paragraph must be read in conjunction with paragraphs (b)(2), (d), and (e). Even when separate or different aids, benefits, or services would be more effective, paragraph (b)(2) provides that a qualified individual with a disability still has the right to choose to participate in the program that is not designed to accommodate individuals with disabilities.

Paragraph (d) requires that a public entity administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.
 
Paragraph (b)(2) specifies that, notwithstanding the existence of separate or different programs or activities provided in accordance with this section, an individual with a disability shall not be denied the opportunity to participate in such programs or activities that are not separate or different.

Paragraph (e), … states that nothing in this part shall be construed to require an individual with a disability to accept an accommodation, aid, service, opportunity, or benefit that he or she chooses not to accept.

Taken together, these provisions are intended to prohibit exclusion and segregation of individuals with disabilities and the denial of equal opportunities enjoyed by others, based on, among other things, presumptions, patronizing attitudes, fears, and stereotypes about individuals with disabilities. Consistent with these standards, public entities are required to ensure that their actions are based on facts applicable to individuals and not on presumptions as to what a class of individuals with disabilities can or cannot do. [emphasis added]

*****************************

In short, the ADA does not restrict individuals from receiving services in specialized settings for people with disabilities nor does it allow public entities to prevent access to services and benefits available to all. 

The 1999 U.S. Supreme Court Olmstead decision affirms this interpretation of the ADA and includes protections and choice for people in institutional settings.