Skip to main content
National Public-Interest Evidence Archive
Menu

Read · watch · verify

100 constitutional-rights questions

Watch or read an explanation, then open its cited sources. This series separates people served, David Medeiros, and ABI Resources. It does not establish violations or decide a case.

Start with a question

  1. Open a question. Each page has a video, captions and complete transcript.
  2. Compare the three rights lenses. Beneficiary rights and provider interests are not interchangeable.
  3. Check the linked report and authorities. A filing is not a finding.

Learn to verify records · Cite a source

All 100 questions

Every episode is reachable without JavaScript.

  1. Could a failure in this program push a person back toward institutional care?WBR23-CON-001
  2. Can a person with memory, reasoning, communication, or executive-function limitations make a real choice without information designed for cognitive access?WBR23-CON-002
  3. Can someone safely complain when the same network may influence care, staffing, transportation, housing, and future referrals?WBR23-CON-003
  4. Who independently verifies that the participant, rather than a professional or provider, actually led the planning process?WBR23-CON-004
  5. Were genuine alternatives explained and recorded before a participant selected a provider, service, or home?WBR23-CON-005
  6. Does every participant have access to an independent advocate who has no financial relationship with the recommended provider or residence?WBR23-CON-006
  7. Does every service plan contain a workable back-up plan for staff absence, service interruption, worsening health, or provider failure?WBR23-CON-007
  8. Are complaint systems usable by people whose disabilities make long forms, phone calls, portals, deadlines, and repeated explanations unusually difficult?WBR23-CON-008
  9. How are participant consent, family involvement, conservator authority, and provider advocacy separated and documented?WBR23-CON-009
  10. Does the program measure independence, dignity, safety, and community participation, or mainly authorizations, utilization, and cost?WBR23-CON-010
  11. What exact written criteria controlled ABI Waiver referrals in 2023, and were those criteria public?WBR23-CON-011
  12. Does a complete referral ledger exist showing every referral, date, care manager, provider considered, participant preference, outcome, and reason?WBR23-CON-012
  13. Was every qualified and willing provider actually presented to each participant?WBR23-CON-013
  14. In what order were providers shown or recommended, and did the order itself steer decisions?WBR23-CON-014
  15. How concentrated were referrals among providers by care manager, region, service type, month, and year?WBR23-CON-015
  16. Were reasons recorded when a qualified provider received few or no referrals?WBR23-CON-016
  17. Were referral decisions based on verified capacity and quality data, or on informal relationships and customary short lists?WBR23-CON-017
  18. Did referral patterns change after ABI Resources complained, and if so, what independent explanation and records support the change?WBR23-CON-018
  19. Can a participant change providers without a gap in care, loss of staff, reduction in services, or pressure from the existing network?WBR23-CON-019
  20. Was there an accessible complaint and appeal route specifically for provider-choice or referral disputes?WBR23-CON-020
  21. How many participants and providers did not receive complete service plans on time?WBR23-CON-021
  22. Are there delivery receipts proving when each participant, provider, staff team, and responsible person received each plan?WBR23-CON-022
  23. Were cognitive-behavioral intervention plans distributed with the service plans to the people providing daily support?WBR23-CON-023
  24. Was every plan signed through informed consent by the participant and by the people responsible for implementation?WBR23-CON-024
  25. Did every plan contain measurable goals, desired outcomes, responsible parties, service amounts, and total costs?WBR23-CON-025
  26. Were direct-support workers ever required to work without a current plan?WBR23-CON-026
  27. Were Medicaid services authorized, delivered, documented, or billed before the governing plan was finalized and distributed?WBR23-CON-027
  28. Were plans updated promptly after significant changes in health, behavior, living situation, staffing, or support needs?WBR23-CON-028
  29. Did every plan identify risks and individualized back-up strategies?WBR23-CON-029
  30. Could staff accurately measure rehabilitation progress without consistent goals and intervention instructions?WBR23-CON-030
  31. What evidence connects missing plans to the report’s claimed financial losses, layoffs, lost clients, or reputational harm?WBR23-CON-031
  32. Did anyone responsible for creating a plan also work for, own, or financially benefit from a provider named in that plan?WBR23-CON-032
  33. Were plans written in plain language and an accessible form suited to the participant’s disability?WBR23-CON-033
  34. Did plans contain safeguards against unnecessary or inappropriate services?WBR23-CON-034
  35. Who audited missing, late, unsigned, inaccessible, or undistributed plans across the entire program?WBR23-CON-035
  36. Did a complete public ABI Waiver provider directory actually exist and function in 2023?WBR23-CON-036
  37. Was the directory complete, current, searchable, and easy to find without insider knowledge?WBR23-CON-037
  38. Did the directory include every enrolled, qualified, and available provider?WBR23-CON-038
  39. What were the written rules for adding, refusing, suspending, or removing a provider from the directory?WBR23-CON-039
  40. Does a version history show every directory change, who made it, when, and why?WBR23-CON-040
  41. Was the directory cognitively accessible to people with brain injuries and available in alternative formats?WBR23-CON-041
  42. Were participants and families affirmatively told where the directory was and how to compare providers?WBR23-CON-042
  43. Did directory entries accurately state current capacity, geographic coverage, services, contact information, and restrictions?WBR23-CON-043
  44. Did the provider names actually offered by care managers match the full directory?WBR23-CON-044
  45. Which office and named role were accountable for maintaining, testing, and publicly reporting directory accuracy?WBR23-CON-045
  46. What exact 2023 authority allowed or prohibited care-management consultation services in ABI Waiver I?WBR23-CON-046
  47. Were policy changes issued, approved, dated, and communicated before the disputed services began?WBR23-CON-047
  48. What billing code, authorization, funding source, and service definition were used for each disputed consultation?WBR23-CON-048
  49. Were the people providing care management properly qualified, trained, licensed where required, and assigned under valid contracts?WBR23-CON-049
  50. Was care management organizationally and financially separate from the providers delivering the participant’s other HCBS?WBR23-CON-050
  51. If an exception to conflict rules existed, was it documented, approved, and paired with accessible safeguards and dispute resolution?WBR23-CON-051
  52. What objective criteria supported recommendations that Waiver I participants move to Waiver II?WBR23-CON-052
  53. Did each recommended transition have a written assessment, alternatives, informed consent, and appeal information?WBR23-CON-053
  54. Did anyone track whether recommended transitions benefited the participant, a provider, a contractor, or the program budget?WBR23-CON-054
  55. Was there a neutral and accessible process to challenge disputed care-management decisions?WBR23-CON-055
  56. What is the complete ownership, employment, contracting, and affiliate map connecting clinical providers, daily-service agencies, care managers, landlords, and business partners?WBR23-CON-056
  57. Did one agency provide both cognitive-behavioral therapy and daily nonmedical services to the same participants?WBR23-CON-057
  58. How often did clinicians recommend additional services supplied by their own employer or affiliate?WBR23-CON-058
  59. Did clinical notes identify and discuss alternative providers before recommending an affiliated service?WBR23-CON-059
  60. Was medical or functional necessity independently reviewed before affiliated services were authorized?WBR23-CON-060
  61. Did service utilization rise after particular clinical recommendations, and was the increase supported by measurable outcomes?WBR23-CON-061
  62. Were any clinicians, consultants, or managers rewarded for referrals, utilization, enrollment, occupancy, or revenue growth?WBR23-CON-062
  63. Were conflicts disclosed in writing to participants, families, DSS, and other decision-makers?WBR23-CON-063
  64. Did participants retain a meaningful ability to decline the affiliated service without jeopardizing therapy, housing, staffing, or future recommendations?WBR23-CON-064
  65. How did utilization and outcomes compare between participants inside the connected network and similar participants using independent providers?WBR23-CON-065
  66. What exact “financial incentive” was allegedly offered to consumers?WBR23-CON-066
  67. Was the alleged benefit a lawful support, discount, gift, rent arrangement, marketing practice, or prohibited inducement?WBR23-CON-067
  68. Who authorized, funded, delivered, received, and recorded each alleged benefit?WBR23-CON-068
  69. Did public money directly or indirectly fund any incentive, rent support, or related benefit?WBR23-CON-069
  70. Did payments or benefits occur shortly before or after referrals, provider changes, service increases, or housing decisions?WBR23-CON-070
  71. Were cash, gift cards, debt relief, reduced rent, free items, transportation, jobs, or other noncash benefits included in the review?WBR23-CON-071
  72. Were all billed services included in the authorized plan, actually provided, properly documented, and medically or functionally necessary?WBR23-CON-072
  73. Did the same network repeatedly identify a need, recommend the service, deliver it, house the participant, and bill for the resulting cycle?WBR23-CON-073
  74. Were participants asked directly, in an accessible way, whether billed services were received and matched their understanding?WBR23-CON-074
  75. Did DSS open a preliminary investigation, and what written disposition explains whether a fuller fraud-or-abuse investigation was warranted?WBR23-CON-075
  76. Who owned, leased, managed, financed, or controlled each residence connected to a service provider or business partner?WBR23-CON-076
  77. Could a participant keep the home while changing the service provider?WBR23-CON-077
  78. Did leases or residency agreements explicitly or implicitly condition tenancy on using a particular provider?WBR23-CON-078
  79. Were participants threatened with eviction, relocation, lost belongings, roommate disruption, or reduced support after raising concerns or considering another provider?WBR23-CON-079
  80. Were both rent and Medicaid-funded services paid into the same connected network, and from which public or private sources?WBR23-CON-080
  81. Did every participant have a legally enforceable agreement with ordinary tenant protections and a fair eviction process?WBR23-CON-081
  82. Could residents lock their doors, choose roommates, receive visitors, control schedules, access food, decorate, and maintain privacy?WBR23-CON-082
  83. Were any restrictions based on a specific assessed need, less-intrusive attempts, informed consent, time limits, and ongoing review?WBR23-CON-083
  84. Were truly independent housing options offered and documented before a provider-connected residence was selected?WBR23-CON-084
  85. What continuity plan protects residents if a connected provider loses enrollment, is sanctioned, closes, or is replaced?WBR23-CON-085
  86. Exactly who received the October 31, November 13, November 15, November 16, November 20, and November 21, 2023 submissions?WBR23-CON-086
  87. What delivery receipts, intake numbers, case numbers, acknowledgments, and routing histories exist for each submission?WBR23-CON-087
  88. Who performed the initial triage, what standard was used, and was a preliminary investigation opened for each fraud-or-abuse concern?WBR23-CON-088
  89. Were investigators independent of the units, contractors, providers, or individuals whose conduct was questioned?WBR23-CON-089
  90. Were referral logs, emails, plans, directory versions, clinical notes, billing records, leases, ownership files, and audit trails preserved after notice?WBR23-CON-090
  91. Did each allegation receive a written finding, supporting evidence, corrective action, referral, or reasoned closure?WBR23-CON-091
  92. What protections existed against retaliation toward participants, families, staff, and providers who supplied information?WBR23-CON-092
  93. Did any referral, payment, credentialing, communication, inspection, or enforcement decision change after a complaint, and what nonretaliatory reason is documented?WBR23-CON-093
  94. Were email-only communication, plain-language explanations, extra processing support, or other disability accommodations provided during complaint handling?WBR23-CON-094
  95. Were participant privacy and consent protected without using privacy as a blanket reason to avoid investigating systemic issues?WBR23-CON-095
  96. Where are the names, dates, amounts, participant-level examples, contracts, communications, referral data, and attachments supporting each allegation?WBR23-CON-096
  97. What evidence supports DSS’s competing position that earlier concerns were inaccurate or misunderstandings, and what evidence supports David’s response that DSS was wrong?WBR23-CON-097
  98. What proves which agency received which exact report version and attachments, on what date, through which channel, and under what receipt or case number?WBR23-CON-098
  99. Does one evidence matrix connect every allegation to the exact event, element, source file, custodian, authentication method, opposing evidence, investigation status, and disposition?WBR23-CON-099
  100. Has any independent body issued a public, evidence-based finding that resolves the six grievance systems raised in the report?WBR23-CON-100