Articles from prior issues of The Advocate

January/February, 1999

NADE Correspondence

440 W. 34 St.
Apt. 3A
New York, NY 10001

Donna Hilton
1117 Sunshine Dr.
Aurora, MO 65605

Dear Ms. Hilton,

The September/October issue of the Advocate provided NADE’s testimony concerning the revised DC listings.
NADE supported the Listings. I disagree with NADE’s position.

Whether we like it or not, the reality of social welfare in this country requires poor children to be on SSI and Medicaid in order to
maximize cash benefits and access adequate health care. The old DC listings were an exercise in social policy that is necessary in
order to help these children with day-to-day living and medical care. The old DC listings achieved this by recognizing behavior
abnormalities and combinations of less severe impairments as impacting on a child’s ADLs. The Court agreed with this approach in
Zebley.

NADE disagreed with the old listings on the grounds of “program integrity” and inappropriate labeling of children as disabled. This is
unfortunate as NADE is putting on blinders to the reality of child poverty in this country, and the limited commitment of our
government to do something about it. It would be better to err on the side of the children’s financial and health care well being than to
throw out the needy and sick baby with the bath water.

Jeffrey Kassel
Quality Assurance Consultant