Advancing Disability Equity: “Nothing About Us Without Us”

Throughout this campaign, I have made a point of listening to people with disabilities (Note: Iʼm going to use “people with disabilities” and “disabled people interchangeably because Iʼve heard from some members of the community that they prefer a person-first language and others who prefer identity-first). There are a couple of experiences in particular that seem to be shared by people across this district and highlight the urgent need for changes to federal policy and funding.

A few weeks ago in Dover, I met a woman who was frustrated because she had recently turned down a raise. When I asked her why, she explained that it obviously wasn’t because she didn’t deserve it or that she didn’t want it. Instead, she turned it down because she relies on Supplemental Security Income (SSI). SSI is a federal program administered by the Social Security Administration that provides monthly support to older adults and to individuals with qualifying disabilities. The raise would push her past the $2,000 asset limit and likely cost her her monthly SSI support. Because the raise would have ultimately been less than her monthly SSI payment, she turned it down. She was literally forced to choose between building her savings and maintaining her coverage. Thatʼs not right.

I heard from a mom who now lives in Rochester and who spent seven months searching for a home that worked for her family and her body: she needed a no-step entrance or a landlord who would allow a ramp to be installed. One man told me he couldn’t find a place with a bathroom that was big enough for his wife’s wheelchair to turn around in. Way too often, it seems like homes for people with disabilities either don’t exist or are unaffordable.

These situations are the result of policy choices and can be addressed by different (and better) policy choices. These stories help us to see that the systems meant to provide health care, housing, and financial security too often function less like a safety net and more like an obstacle course. It does not have to be like this. There are plenty of practical, researched-backed changes we can and should make.

Here’s what Iʼll prioritize in Congress:

Increase access to high-quality, affordable health care

We know that access to the right equipment and the right services is so important for health and independence (and interdependence). Unfortunately, far too many disabled people are forced to delay or go without essential medical equipment. Federal agencies should make insurance claims easier to submit and shorten the time it takes to process them by requiring insurers to be transparent about how authorization works.

Coverage gaps also deserve scrutiny. Washington can reduce gaps in Medicare and Medicaid coverage by expanding Medigap coverage to people younger than 65. Reforming outdated rules is always a great starting point. For example, Medicare’s “in the home” rule covers durable medical equipment only when it’s needed at home, as if disabled people don’t also need to work, run errands, and participate in community life. That rule should be updated so it covers equipment people with disabilities need whether inside their homes or out and about.

Address the shortage of affordable, accessible housing

In NH, stable housing is hard to find. Too many people with disabilities looking for housing they can afford and access are confronted with additional barriers compared with non-disabled people.

While there is a lot of work that we can do on this front, two things in particular stand out. First, federal policymakers could provide more funding to public housing authorities so they can maintain and upgrade their properties. This means keeping units livable and accessible rather than letting them deteriorate. Second, agencies could partner with community-based organizations already leading the way on disability-forward housing design, which would integrate accessibility into housing from the beginning instead of adding it as an afterthought.

Set an asset limit floor for public assistance programs

Every day, millions of disabled people and their families rely on safety net programs to afford basic needs. But many of those programs come with a terrible catch: asset limits that make it nearly impossible to save and as a result keep disabled people trapped in poverty.

Supplemental Security Income is the clearest example. SSI is a lifeline for more than 6 million disabled people, yet Washington hasn’t updated its asset limits in over 40 years. An individual can’t hold more than $2,000 in assets; for a married couple, the ceiling is $3,000. In effect, the program asks people to limit their savings in order to keep their support.

Setting a universal asset limit floor across public assistance programs would change that. At minimum, we should push to raise the limit to $10,000 for individuals and $20,000 for married couples which would let disabled people and their families build real savings without fear of losing their benefits. A consistent floor would also cut administrative costs, which would save the federal government money while advancing equity.

Protect Section 504 and the students who depend on it

For more than 50 years, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act has been the law. It is the reason a kid with ADHD, diabetes, epilepsy, anxiety, or a mobility disability can receive a 504 plan. These accommodations, which range from extra time on tests to an accessible classroom to a daily health routine, let students with disabilities learn alongside their peers. For millions of families, Section 504 is the difference between a child who is included and a child who is not.

Right now, Section 504 is being undermined by a variety of different groups. For example, a recent multistate lawsuit challenging federal Section 504 regulations argued that the law itself was unconstitutional (if this was found to be the case, it would have led to the loss of protections for every student in the country with a 504 plan). After challenges from disabled people and their families, the states withdrew the claim. But they didn’t stop there: an amended complaint filed by nine states in January 2026 continues to challenge the 2024 Section 504 rules, including the “integration mandate” that requires people with disabilities to be served in the most integrated setting appropriate. Advocates warn that even this narrower fight could weaken protections and access to schools, health care, and community life.

No family should have to wonder, year to year, whether the law protecting their child’s education will remain in place or be enforced. Federal policymakers should defend Section 504 without equivocation and fight for funding so schools can hire the staff, access the funding, and provide the oversight necessary to honor the 504 plans they write. Too many families today secure a 504 plan on paper only to have to fight, year after year, to see it followed.

Count disability accurately and listen

Good policy depends on good information. Continuing to meaningfully engage the disability community would help Washington write more accurate and inclusive questions for tools like the American Community Survey, an ongoing demographic survey by the US Census Bureau that helps guide the distribution of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal and state funding each year and is used by elected officials at varying levels for planning purposes (think: new schools, roads, hospitals, emergency services, etc). Over the longer term, agencies should also be prioritizing working with disabled researchers and other experts to develop new disability measures that better reflect how disabled people understand and describe themselves.

That principle — involving disabled people directly — runs through every recommendation here. The clearest path to housing that works, healthcare coverage that actually covers people, and programs that help people build rather than turn down opportunities to build financial security is to center people with disabilities in the policy and programming decisions that shape everyday life.