This Senate resolution (S. Res. 338) recognizes the continuing importance of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and documents persistent barriers—especially institutional bias in Medicaid, gaps in home‑and‑community‑based services (HCBS), and disparate impacts on people of color and those with Long COVID—that limit independent living and economic self‑sufficiency for people with disabilities.
It cites Olmstead v. L.C., restates that Medicaid is essential for many people with disabilities, and calls for sustained federal attention to move people into integrated community settings.
Rather than creating legal mandates or new funding, the resolution is a floor‑level policy statement that admonishes against Medicaid cuts and work‑reporting requirements, pledges bipartisan efforts to address segregation in institutions, and directs a set of federal agencies (Department of Labor, FCC, HHS/Administration for Community Living, HUD, DOT, FEMA) to provide policies, technical assistance, staffing, and resources aimed at expanding HCBS, competitive integrated employment, accessible communications, housing, transportation, and inclusive emergency preparedness.
At a Glance
What It Does
S. Res. 338 is a Senate resolution that (1) affirms the ADA’s goals, (2) finds Medicaid’s institutional bias and identifies gaps in community supports, and (3) calls on specific federal agencies to take policy and technical‑assistance actions to expand home‑and‑community‑based supports and employment access. It also explicitly warns against Medicaid reductions, including the imposition of work‑reporting requirements.
Who It Affects
The resolution speaks directly to people with disabilities (including those in institutions, people with Long COVID, and people of color with disabilities), state Medicaid programs, federal agencies named in the text, disability service providers, housing developers, and transportation agencies. It does not itself alter statutory authorities or funding streams.
Why It Matters
Although nonbinding, the resolution bundles bipartisan findings and agency directives that can shape administrative priorities, formal guidance, and appropriation debates. For compliance officers and policy teams, it signals areas where agencies may increase technical assistance, issue guidance, or prioritize grantmaking and oversight going forward.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
S. Res. 338 opens by framing the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 as the legal and moral foundation for independent living, equal opportunity, and economic self‑sufficiency for people with disabilities.
The preamble highlights continuing gaps: many people with disabilities still live in segregated institutional settings, Medicaid can produce an institutional bias, more than a third of people with disabilities rely on Medicaid, and recent events—like the COVID‑19 pandemic and Long COVID—have increased both need and disparity.
The operative text is a set of declarations and calls to action rather than binding commands. The Senate “recognizes” the ADA’s accomplishments, “encourages” public celebration of inclusion, and “pledges” bipartisan work to address remaining barriers, with a stated priority on people who remain segregated in institutions.
It specifically urges states and the federal government to improve funding for and access to home‑and‑community‑based services, with an explicit focus on employment access.The resolution also takes an advocacy stance on current policy debates: it admonishes against cuts to Medicaid and against imposing burdensome work‑reporting requirements that could reduce coverage and services for people with disabilities. It then calls on six federal agencies to act within their existing authorities—asking DOL to develop employment policies and technical assistance, FCC to expand accessible communications resources, HHS to staff and support the Administration for Community Living, HUD to promote accessible and inclusive housing, DOT to improve accessible transit and increase hiring and retention of workers with disabilities in transportation, and FEMA to continue a whole‑community approach in emergency preparedness.Because it is a resolution, S.
Res. 338 does not change law or appropriate funds. Its practical effect lies in signaling Senate priorities, encouraging agency action, and providing advocacy groups and states with a text they can point to when seeking administrative guidance or funding shifts.
The resolution therefore matters as a policy compass that could influence agency rulemaking, grant guidance, and congressional appropriation discussions without itself creating enforceable obligations.
The Five Things You Need to Know
S. Res. 338 is a nonbinding Senate resolution introduced by Sen. Tammy Duckworth that marks the ADA’s role and urges further federal action to support independent living and work for people with disabilities.
The resolution finds that Medicaid exhibits an ‘institutional bias,’ notes Olmstead v. L.C.
and states that over one‑third of people with disabilities rely on Medicaid for health coverage.
It explicitly admonishes against Medicaid cuts and against the creation of burdensome 'work‑reporting requirements' that could reduce access to health and long‑term supports.
The resolution calls on specific agencies—Department of Labor, FCC, HHS (Administration for Community Living), HUD, DOT, and FEMA—to provide policies, technical assistance, staffing, and resources to expand HCBS, competitive employment, accessible communications, housing, transit, and inclusive emergency preparedness.
While it directs agencies to act, the resolution does not change statutory authorities or appropriate funds; its leverage is political and programmatic rather than legal.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings: ADA progress, Medicaid reliance, institutionalization, and disparities
The preamble assembles evidentiary statements: the ADA is foundational; many people with disabilities still live segregated lives; Medicaid supports home‑based care but retains institutional incentives; Long COVID and COVID‑era harms have increased disability prevalence and disparate impacts, especially for people of color. These findings set the policy frame the Senate wants agencies and states to address, and they bring legal touchstones—like Olmstead—into the resolution’s logic.
Recognition, public encouragement, and bipartisan pledge
These clauses formally affirm the ADA’s goals, encourage public celebration of inclusion, and pledge bipartisan work to identify and address barriers to equality and independent living. Practically, they function as a congressional statement of priorities designed to be cited by advocates or agencies when justifying programmatic emphasis on deinstitutionalization and community inclusion.
State collaboration on HCBS funding and employment focus
The Senate pledges to ‘work with States to improve funding for and access to home and community‑based services,’ explicitly focusing on increasing access to employment. This is a policy nudge: it urges federal‑state partnership and suggests the Senate expects states to prioritize HCBS and employment supports, but it does not impose funding formulas or statutory mandates.
Admonition against Medicaid cuts and work‑reporting barriers
This clause warns against recent and future reductions to Medicaid, calling out work‑reporting requirements as a particular threat to people with disabilities. Though hortatory, the language signals Senate concern about any federal or state measures that would reduce Medicaid eligibility or services for disabled people, and it provides a political argument for opponents of such cuts.
Agency calls: DOL, FCC, HHS/ACL, HUD, DOT, FEMA
The resolution requests tangible actions from six agencies within their existing authorities: DOL to develop employment policies and technical assistance for competitive integrated employment; FCC to provide accessible communications resources and technical support; HHS to fully staff and back the Administration for Community Living and promote independent living via HCBS assistance; HUD to expand accessible, inclusive housing options; DOT to improve accessibility in transit and airports and to increase hiring and retention of workers with disabilities; and FEMA to continue a whole‑community, accessible approach to emergency preparedness. These are programmatic directives without enforcement mechanisms, but they indicate areas where agencies could prioritize rulemaking, guidance, grant criteria, or staffing.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- People with disabilities currently in or at risk of institutional placement — the resolution prioritizes deinstitutionalization, increased HCBS access, and employment supports that directly support independent living.
- Individuals with Long COVID and those newly classified as disabled — the text explicitly recognizes Long COVID as increasing the population with disabilities and directs attention to their needs.
- People of color with disabilities — the resolution highlights disparate impacts and directs agencies to address equity in healthcare, housing, education, and employment access.
- Disability advocacy organizations and legal advocates — the resolution provides a clear congressional statement and findings (including Olmstead) that advocates can cite when pushing agencies or states for policy and funding changes.
- States that expand HCBS and integration programs — states that move to increase HCBS and employment supports may find federal agencies more likely to provide technical assistance or prioritize grant awards in the areas the resolution highlights.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies named (HHS/ACL, DOL, FCC, HUD, DOT, FEMA) — the resolution asks for staffing, technical assistance, and programmatic emphasis, which will consume agency time and budgets absent new appropriations.
- State Medicaid programs — the resolution nudges states toward greater HCBS spending and integration, which may require shifting budgets or increasing reimbursements to community providers.
- Institutional care providers and some long‑term care facilities — a federal push toward community placement can reduce demand for certain institutional services and require providers to adapt business models.
- Local housing developers and transit agencies — expectations for more accessible, inclusive housing and transit may increase costs for retrofits, new construction, or service changes even if the resolution does not mandate funding.
- Congressional appropriations process — while the resolution does not appropriate funds, it raises issues that may translate into future budget pressures for CMS, HUD, DOT, FEMA, and HHS program lines.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between two legitimate objectives: expanding community‑based supports, employment, and accessible services to enable independent living, and the fiscal, workforce, and administrative limits that make those expansions costly and difficult. The resolution urges and warns simultaneously—calling for greater HCBS and opposing Medicaid cuts—yet it offers no funding or enforcement path, leaving the hard choice about when and how to move people from institutions into the community up to agencies and states with constrained resources.
Two features limit the resolution’s immediate legal bite: it is nonbinding and it creates no new statutory entitlements or funding streams. That restricts its direct impact to agenda‑setting, reputational pressure, and potential influence on administrative guidance or appropriation language.
Agencies could respond by issuing guidance, prioritizing grantmaking, or reallocating internal staff, but they have no new statutory duties under the resolution itself.
Implementation tradeoffs are real. Pushing for rapid deinstitutionalization without guaranteed, sustained HCBS funding and workforce development risks creating service gaps and housing shortages.
Similarly, admonishing against Medicaid cuts and work‑reporting requirements sets a strong policy preference, but states facing tight budgets may struggle to expand HCBS without federal matching funds or formula changes. Finally, the resolution bundles many agency objectives—employment, communications accessibility, housing, transit, and emergency preparedness—yet it provides no coordination mechanism or metrics, so interagency efforts could remain fragmented unless followed by concrete interagency planning or appropriations.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.