Search

Class action lawsuits filed in violation of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) raise questions for those concerned with improving the education system for students with disabilities. First, do the lawsuits result in changes that can be directly linked to improved student outcomes? Second, do these lawsuits and the "consent decrees" that settle them refer to best practices in educating children with disabilities? To date, no study has examined the remedies ordered as a result of these lawsuits in the disability education context, or proven how different types of remedies can impede or facilitate progress for students with disabilities. Class action lawsuits under IDEA filed in large, urban school districts between 1990 and 2011 and the remedies ordered under the final agreement were reviewed. This review suggests that the lawsuits against large, urban school districts tend to result in remedial activities that focus more on planning, supporting and monitoring than on outcomes or evidence-based practice.

Public law litigation (PLL) is among the most important and controversial types of dispute that courts face. These civil class actions seek to reform public agencies such as police departments, prison systems, and child welfare agencies that have failed to meet basic statutory or constitutional obligations. They are controversial because critics assume that judicial intervention is categorically undemocratic or beyond judicial expertise. This Article reveals flaws in these criticisms by comparing the judicial function in PLL to that in corporate bankruptcy, where the value and legitimacy of judicial intervention are better understood and more accepted. Our comparison shows that judicial intervention in both spheres responds to coordination problems that make individual stakeholder action ineffective, and it explains how courts in both spheres can require and channel major organizational change without administering the organizations themselves or inefficiently constricting the discretion of managers. The comparison takes on greater urgency in light of the Trump administration's vow to "deconstruct the administrative state," a promise which, if kept, will likely increase demand for PLL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This qualitative study articulates the challenges, best practices, and facilitators to information sharing when addressing the behavioral health needs of children in out-of-home care. 13 interviews and nine focus groups were conducted to illuminate the perspectives of foster parents, mental health clinicians, provider agency social workers, and city-employed child welfare professionals. In total, 65 individuals participated in this qualitative study and data were analyzed using a modified grounded theory approach. Results indicate that challenges and best practices in cross-system information sharing articulated across the four stakeholder groups are attributed to variation in information accessibility, clarity in roles and protocols, ability in obtaining signatures for consent/release forms, and attitudinal differences towards collaboration. Implications to improve policy and practice are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Class action lawsuits filed in violation of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ( IDEA) raise questions for those concerned with improving the education system for students with disabilities. First, do the lawsuits result in changes that can be directly linked to improved student outcomes? Second, do these lawsuits and the 'consent decrees' that settle them refer to best practices in educating children with disabilities? To date, no study has examined the remedies ordered as a result of these lawsuits in the disability education context, or proven how different types of remedies can impede or facilitate progress for students with disabilities. Class action lawsuits under IDEA filed in large, urban school districts between 1990 and 2011 and the remedies ordered under the final agreement were reviewed. This review suggests that the lawsuits against large, urban school districts tend to result in remedial activities that focus more on planning, supporting and monitoring than on outcomes or evidence-based practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, paired with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, expanded health insurance coverage to millions of previously uninsured Americans and guaranteed that new insurance policies cover mental health and substance abuse treatment. This article examines how these recent pieces of legislation can be used to remedy the problems associated with the current model's ineffective enforcement of insurance regulations and proposes that more inclusive essential health benefit definitions and an expansion of monitored, certified health plans in health insurance Marketplaces can provide increased future access to this crucial health coverage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) establishes essential health benefits as the coverage standard for health plans sold in the individual and small-group markets for all fifty states and the District of Columbia, including the health insurance Marketplaces. “Pediatric services” is one of the required classes of coverage under the ACA. However, other than oral health and vision care, neither the act nor the regulations for implementing it define what these services should be. We investigated how state benchmark plans—the base plan chosen in each state as the standard or benchmark of coverage in that state under ACA rules—address pediatric coverage in plans governed by the essential health benefits standard. Our review of summaries of all the state benchmark plans found that no state specified a distinct pediatric services benefit class. Furthermore, although benchmark plans explicitly included multiple pediatric conditions, many plans also specifically excluded services for children with special health care needs. The Department of Health and Human Services has made a commitment in the essential health benefits regulations to review its approach for the 2016 plan year. Thus, our findings have implications for future regulations regarding the essential health benefits standard for pediatric services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]