The promise of home- and community-based services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities is one of the most meaningful advances in modern public policy. It reflects decades of civil rights progress, thoughtful planning and collaboration among people with disabilities, their families, providers and government leaders. At its core is a shared commitment to inclusion — to ensure that individuals with disabilities are fully supported to live, work and participate in the same communities as everyone else.
In Pennsylvania, that commitment is reflected in the regulations developed by the Office of Developmental Programs. These standards were not crafted in haste or imposed unilaterally. They are the product of a five-year process that brought together stakeholders from across the state — families, self-advocates, providers and professionals. Together, they shaped a regulatory framework that balances person-centered services, health and safety protections and the legal requirements of federal home- and community-based services policies.
would set that work aside.
The bill seeks to repeal key elements of Pennsylvania’s 6100 regulations, including the rules that limit the size and clustering of residential settings for people with disabilities. The proponents claim this will expand choice. In reality, it threatens to undo years of progress and risk a return to outdated models of care that congregate individuals in large settings under the guise of efficiency or convenience.
SB 657 was referred to the Senate Intergovernmental Operations Committee. To their credit, the committee’s members listened politely and asked thoughtful, probing questions during the public hearing. That engagement is appreciated. However, the complex nature of Medicaid-funded disability services and the policy structure surrounding home- and community-based services suggests that a review by the Senate Health and Human Services Committee — whose members and staff have a deep, longstanding understanding of Medicaid, waiver programs and the intellectual and developmental disabled community — would have been more appropriate for such a consequential proposal.
It’s important to understand that Pennsylvania’s regulations were developed not to limit choice, but to protect it. The regulations align with the federal , which mandates that services must be delivered in the most integrated setting appropriate to each person. While the federal rule does not specify numeric limits for home size or proximity, it requires states to define measurable standards to ensure compliance. That’s exactly what the Office of Developmental Programs did — through a transparent, collaborative process that was praised by the Independent Regulatory Review Commission.
Supporters of SB 657 argue that the existing rules prevent families from building intentional communities or farmstead-style housing. But that framing ignores the flexibility already built into the system. Office of Developmental Programs’ regulations allow for waivers in specific circumstances where person-centered planning and safeguards are demonstrated. These waivers have been used to support creative solutions without undermining the principles of inclusion or the integrity of the broader service system.
SB 657 would remove these safeguards — not selectively, but entirely. It would mandate sweeping changes to decades of policy within an impractical 180-day timeframe, bypassing the very community that helped design the current system. It assumes that deregulation will solve challenges like housing shortages or workforce gaps, when in fact, those issues require targeted investment and sustained planning — not lower standards.
There is no doubt that Pennsylvania’s system for those with intellectual and developmental disabilities is under strain. The workforce crisis, limited residential capacity and the need for affordable housing are urgent problems. But solutions must come from working together — across party lines, across professional roles and across communities. That’s how the 6100 regulations were created, and that’s how any responsible update to them should proceed.
Senate Bill 657 is not a response to stakeholder consensus. It is a legislative shortcut that risks undoing protections that were built to uphold dignity, autonomy and inclusion for some of the commonwealth’s most vulnerable citizens.
Reforming our service system must not mean retreating from our values. It must mean recommitting to the collaborative work that has made community living a reality for thousands. For that reason, this bill should not move forward — especially not through a process that sidelines those who know the system best.
The future of disability services in Pennsylvania should be shaped by dialogue, not directives. It should reflect the shared understanding that progress takes time, trust and the voices of everyone it will impact. Senate Bill 657 does not meet that test.
This is a contributed opinion column. Gary H. Blumenthal is a former federal disability official. The views expressed in this piece are those of its individual author, and should not be interpreted as reflecting the views of this publication. Do you have a perspective to share? Learn more about how we handle guest opinion submissions at themorningcall.com/opinions.
