Was the directory complete, current, searchable, and easy to find without insider knowledge?

Watch with captions

Video file · VTT captions · SRT captions · Transcript file

Full transcript

Question 37. Was the directory complete, current, searchable, and easy to find without insider knowledge? The 2023 report raises a concern, not a finding. People served: Choice must be meaningful and accessible; a hidden or unusable directory may require regulatory and disability-access review. David Medeiros: Requests, complaints, and public-record activity may be protected, but retaliation and access each use different legal tests. ABI Resources: Directory inclusion may involve program or contract rules, not an automatic constitutional entitlement to business. Constitutional claims need state action; beneficiary choice does not guarantee ABI referrals or a contract. Classify the issue before choosing a remedy. Preserve directory versions, change logs, eligibility rules, access tests, notices, and provider lists actually shown. Apply Constitution, statute, regulation, contract, then record.

Three separate rights lenses

Limits and records needed

Constitutional claims require conduct fairly attributable to government; private-provider status is not automatic state action.

Provider choice chiefly protects beneficiaries and does not guarantee ABI referrals, volume, renewal, contracting, or payment.

Records identified for review: directory versions, change logs, eligibility rules, access tests, notices, and provider lists actually shown

Educational issue spotting, not legal advice. A filing is not a finding; a question does not prove its premise or answer.

Source and authorities

• Public report page
• Public PDF
• U.S. Constitution — state-action doctrine
• 42 C.F.R. § 431.51
• 42 C.F.R. § 441.301(c)
• 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130, 35.134
• 29 U.S.C. § 794; 45 C.F.R. §§ 84.68, 84.71, 84.76
• Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-206, 1-210

How to cite a source · Understand evidence limits