‘I will get ICE and police to your house’: Immigrant workers say they increasingly face wage theft, deportation threats

Below is the full text of a Boston Globe article from 08/12/2026.

Greater Boston Legal Services Managing Attorney Audrey Richardson is quoted.

By Yogev Toby

Such actions, despite being illegal, are adding to a climate of fear and powerlessness among immigrant workers across the state

Three construction workers said they completed three jobs without seeing a single dime last fall. Their employers, masonry subcontractors, insisted that the money — roughly $10,000 — was coming. It never did.

When one worker confronted his employer over text, saying he would file a report alleging wage theft, the employer wielded a threat that immigrant advocates say has become increasingly common since the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown started.

“You can file whatever you like,” the employer wrote, in messages viewed by the Globe. “I will not pay you nothing because you threaten me [sic] now [expletive] off or I will get ICE and the police to your house to bring you back to the dusty taco eating place you come from … I know where you live.”

The workers lacked work authorization. For them, the deportation threat was real.

Such cases are a growing problem, immigrant advocates say, with groups that help undocumented workers saying they’ve seen an uptick in complaints, particularly in the construction industry, of employers not paying agreed-upon wages and then, when confronted, threatening to call Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Such actions, despite being illegal, are adding to a a climate of fear and powerlessness among immigrant workers across the state.

“Employers who want to exploit workers seem to feel like they have the green light to continue exploiting,” said Leela Ramachandran, co-director of the Metrowest Worker Center in Framingham, an advocacy group that helped the workers in the masonry case. “The environment does not carry consequences for their threats.”

Before Trump’s second term, the center handled one to two wage theft cases a month. Now, it receives about seven cases each month, she said.

“There’s no doubt that employers are taking advantage of workers’ fears to get away with not paying wages … and not following the law with respect to workplace injuries,” said Audrey Richardson, managing attorney at Greater Boston Legal Services, a nonprofit organization that provides legal assistance to immigrants and refugees, including on wage theft cases.

Even as many immigrants are scared to speak out, wage theft cases — in which workers allege their employer didn’t pay them enough for work performed — have spiked since the immigration crackdown began in early 2025.

Workers filed 3,384 wage theft complaints to the Massachusetts attorney general’s office from January through May. That’s a roughly 16 percent increase over the same period in 2025 and a 10 percent rise over 2024.

Most complaints filed with the AG’s office by May of this year came from the health care, restaurant, and service industries.

About 7.7 percent of all complaints, or 261, came from the construction industry, one of the industries that employs the most undocumented workers in the state.

In many of these industries, advocates say workers are often paid in cash and have to negotiate with their employer to receive the full agreed-upon amount. In the construction industry, for instance, workers are often paid only at the end of a project, which allows employers to undercount hours and pay below prevailing wages.

Renato, 48, a construction worker who lives in Everett, said he doesn’t know a single person in his industry who hasn’t experienced wage theft.

“But now if anything happens, the first thing that [employers] do to pull threats is call ICE,” he said.

Renato, who is originally from Brazil and requested to only be identified by his first name for fear of retaliation, worked for a decade on building maintenance projects. When the business dissolved, Renato looked through dozens of past invoices and discovered that he was missing a sum of about one paycheck a month for the past 10 years, amounting to $22,000.

Renato confronted his employer in March to request the unpaid funds. Massachusetts law allows workers to demand payment for wage and hour violations up to three years after the violation. Renato could legally sue the employer and – if he won – get triple damages.

The employer refused to pay any of the owed amount, Renato said.

“I can solve this problem with one phone call, just like I did with the other employee,” Renato recalled the employer saying. According to Renato, the employer had regularly boasted about getting a previous worker deported.

“So I just stood up, put the chair back, and walked away,” Renato said.

Renato reported his case to the attorney general’s office, which is investigating. Notifying immigration authorities about a worker who complained about labor rights violations is considered retaliation, according to the attorney general’s office, and is subject to penalties such as fines or jail time.

But the lingering threat continues to burden Renato.

“I can’t sleep,” Renato said. “I have to drink energy drinks to stay awake during the day and at night I cannot sleep.”

Many of the workers who arrive at the Framingham center, also called Casa, allow the organization to contact their employers and negotiate on their behalf, but refrain from filing an official complaint, said Ramachandran.

“Workers have never felt less protected and scared, and the people who usually support them have less capacity,” she said. “It’s a perfect storm.”

The pervasive fear is also reflected in the falling number of wage theft cases workers are taking to Greater Boston Legal Services, Richardson said. Such cases were down by almost 50 percent for 2025 and 2026, compared to the same period in 2024.

Similarly, the Brazilian Worker Center in Allston has seen the number of legal cases it helps workers pursue against employers be cut in half to about 50 per year since Trump returned to office, said André Simões, the center’s workers rights program manager.

Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell said in a statement Massachusetts law protects all workers, regardless of immigration status. The office does not request immigration-related information when investigating.

“We do not tolerate employers who retaliate against workers for asserting their rights or reporting violations,” Campbell said.

Employers who don’t play by the rules hurt the entire industry, said Bert Durand, communications director at the North Atlantic States Regional Council of Carpenters.

“If your competition is cheating and cutting 30, 40, or 60 percent off of their labor costs, you’re at a significant disadvantage just by following the rules,” Durand said.

Even business partners can be vulnerable to deportation being used as a weapon.

In another case handled by Ramachandran, a Framingham resident, 25, wanted to disentangle himself from a construction business partner in New York who Ramachandran said was taking company funds for personal use and drugs, including roughly $33,000 the Framingham man said he was owed.

Last year, the man traveled to New York with his wife and baby to return company equipment and demand the missing funds, Ramachandran said. When he arrived at the meeting spot, his former business partner pointed at him and said, according to Ramachandran, “this is the guy I have problems with.”

A squad of ICE agents swarmed the group, shoving the man’s wife and baby and detaining him, according to Ramachandran. Family members, with the help of Casa, paid bond for the man, who is awaiting further immigration proceedings and had no prior criminal record.

“This is highlighting the contradiction of the system … and upends the narrative that ICE is detaining the worst people and making our country safer,” said Ramachandran.

In a statement, an ICE spokesperson said: “ICE does not comment on unverified, anecdotal scenarios. The Trump Administration is utilizing all lawful options to carry out the largest deportation operation in history, just as President Trump promised.”

Maria, 27, a Casa worker whose family works in construction and asked to use only her first name to protect from retaliation, said her brother-in-law went unpaid for six months’ worth of overtime, but didn’t report it for fear of ICE.

“Sometimes I feel sad,” she said in Spanish. “Because we lack papers or documents, we stay silent.”

Read the story on The Boston Globe’s website

Nearly 15 years after student discipline reform, school suspensions in Mass. are falling. Are emergency removals taking their place?

IN 2012, after child advocates spent years trying to reduce punitive suspensions in schools, Massachusetts passed sweeping education reforms under Chapter 222, kickstarting a longstanding policy shift away from exclusionary discipline methods.

The law came as the nation moved away from the Zero-Tolerance policies of the 1990s and toward efforts to dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline. Chapter 222 established new due process and data reporting requirements for school districts regarding the discipline and exclusion of students. The underlying principle was to make exclusionary methods like suspension a last resort and require those who are removed from the classroom to continue receiving access to learning materials.

Around the time the law was passed, many out-of-school suspensions were for non-criminal, non-violent, non-drug-related offenses, and that broad, discretionary, catch-all category was where some of the greatest racial disparities existed. Students of color were removed from school for minor offenses at disproportionately higher rates than white students, as were students with disabilities compared to their peers.

In 2022, the state took it a step further by passing Chapter 177, requiring school districts to attempt alternative methods like restorative justice, counseling, and mediation before resorting to exclusionary discipline.

Nearly 15 years after that initial policy shift, out-of-school suspensions are falling. From 2018 to 2025, they dropped from nearly 28,500 statewide to less than 22,000, according to data reported by school districts and collected by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). In that same timeframe, the number of students receiving any form of disciplinary action in Massachusetts schools decreased by nearly 24 percent. In-school suspensions declined as well.

Yet, while only impacting a small percentage of students, emergency removals — a mechanism allowing school administrators to immediately remove a student from school due to severe behavior for up to two days before the child receives a legally-mandated hearing — have substantially increased, from nearly 1,500 in 2018 to more than 3,900 in 2025. The number of emergency removals dipped during the 2020-2021 school year but has increased every year since 2022.

The state’s 26 Gateway City school districts — which are responsible for educating some of the most disadvantaged student populations in Massachusetts — reported more than half of all emergency removals in 2025, despite making up just 28 percent of the state’s total public school population. In those districts alone, emergency removals collectively grew by 78 percent while suspensions decreased by 23 percent.

What’s behind the increase? The answer isn’t simple.

The trend has racial justice and education advocates sounding the alarm, suggesting that school districts may be circumventing suspensions (and the alternative discipline methods they are legally required to employ) and instead opting for emergency removals as a quick fix to behavioral issues. Those removals are amounting to lost learning that advocates say is ultimately contributing to the state’s staggering racial and socioeconomic achievement gaps.

“We’ve had all of these changes, but there’s not a lot of teeth,” said Jenny Chou, executive director of the Children’s Law Center of Massachusetts, a legal services and advocacy group representing families and children. “The more you’re not in school, the worse off you are, and now we have this whole system where it’s seemingly justified to put you out.”

Teacher advocates and school officials say they haven’t been provided with the necessary level of resources or training to deploy alternative discipline methods, calling Chapter 177 an “unfunded mandate” amid a chronic shortage of special education professionals. Others say the increase can be at least partly attributed to an uptick in more violent, volatile classroom behavior due to youth mental health struggles brought about by the pandemic.

“The sad outcome of that is that schools are overusing emergency removals so they don’t have to comply with our harder out-of-school suspension laws, and also so they don’t have to use the alternatives that our state isn’t providing them funding or training for,” said Matthew Cregor, an education attorney at the Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee, which offers legal representation to people with mental health challenges.

esearch has long shown that exclusion from school is linked to poorer academic outcomeshigher risk of dropout, and increased contact with the criminal justice system. A 2018 study found that suspended youth were 40 percent more likely to be arrested within five years and 94 percent more likely to have been arrested as a minor. More recent studies have shown that these disciplinary practices negatively affect young people’s emotional and mental well-being.

The modest decline in out-of-school suspensions in Massachusetts has been celebrated by education advocates on all sides. But even though suspension rates have decreased for students of color and students with disabilities, both groups continue to be suspended at higher rates than their peers. In 2025, those with disabilities were suspended out of school at 2.5 times the rate of those without disabilities, according to data collected by DESE. Hispanic students were suspended 2.5 times as often as white students, while Black students were suspended nearly three times as much as white students.

The disparities persist when it comes to the use of emergency removals. Those with disabilities were removed at more than three times the rate of those without disabilities in 2025. Hispanic students experienced emergency removals nearly three times as much as white students, while Black students were removed more than four times as much as white students.

“If districts were meaningfully deploying approaches like restorative justice, mediation, and conflict resolution, they’d be able to act in a proactive manner to address student conflict and student misbehavior,” said Leon Smith, executive director of Citizens for Juvenile Justice, a nonprofit advocacy organization. “They’d be able to get to the root of some of these behaviors, and they’d be able to de-escalate conflicts before they result in fights and things of that nature. In the absence of that, you have continuing behavior that, unfortunately, is still falling into exclusion.”

Jay Blitzman, a former juvenile court judge and former director of Massachusetts Advocates for Children (MAC), said any kind of disciplinary exclusion contributes to the school-to-prison pipeline.

“This adversely affects public safety, quite candidly,” he said. “Educational continuity is essential. Doing everything we can to keep youth in school is obviously good for them, but it’s also part of being smart on crime.”

“It’s easy to react and blame kids, but we as adults have to assume some systemic accountability,” he added. “These problems are historic, and they aren’t going away.”

Chapter 222 required districts to provide students and families with notice and a hearing prior to an out-of-school suspension, except during emergency circumstances, in which the child can receive their hearing after being removed.

Emergency removals were established as an official disciplinary category in 2014. Districts may finally be reporting them with some accuracy, Cregor said, which could help explain the spike in removals.

But some advocates, including Jennifer White, an education attorney at MAC, suspect that school officials are utilizing informal removals that are not being officially reported as emergency removals to the state.

She told CommonWealth Beacon she has worked with parents that have received mid-day calls from school officials requesting that their child be picked up after one or more behavioral incidents. Yet some are allowed to return to school the next day without ever receiving the mandated hearing that is supposed to accompany an emergency removal.

Chou said she has seen similar cases. “As if that’s some time-out that they’re allowed to do,” she said.

Beccah Griffithpresident of the Malden Education Association and a special education teacher, said many districts are reluctant to use formal discipline measures for students on Individualized Education Program (IEP) plans out of fear of invoking a manifestation determination — a legal meeting required by the ⁠Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to decide if a student’s misbehavior was caused by their disability or a failure to follow their education plan. It is triggered when a school plans to suspend a student with a disability. This could account for the uptick in the use of emergency removals, as well as the disproportionate use of removals against students with disabilities, Griffith said.

2025 Stanford research study published by a journal of the American Educational Research Association found evidence that schools in California, after being sanctioned for disproportionately suspending Black students, began using informal ways to remove students from learning, such as sending children home early or isolating them in hallways, often without recording the action as a form of discipline. Researchers found more broadly that these practices occur when mandates to reduce formal suspensions “are not paired with adequate resources for alternative restorative behavior management approaches.”

Because of the budget crunches around hiring ancillary service providers like social workers, behavior analysts, and speech therapists, many districts have only been able to hire staff for legally mandated services, like math and science teachers, rather than additional supports, Griffith said.

“There is resentment and dislike towards these alternative discipline strategies because they’re not being resourced properly,” she added “If we have the requisite, expertly trained staff and the time, space, and resources, it works. But I don’t know any educator in Massachusetts that has all of those things.”

In addition to staff and funding, advocates say implementing alternative discipline practices requires long-term training, programming, oversight, and technical assistance. DESE’s Rethinking Discipline Initiative, for example, coaches school districts on data reporting and assists in the reduction of disparate rates of suspension for students with disabilities and students of color.

“The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education continues to work with districts to develop the supports and practices that educators need to reduce the inappropriate or excessive use of emergency removal and other types of suspension,” a DESE spokesperson said in a statement provided to CommonWealth Beacon.

In 2025, there were 3,915 reported emergency removals in Massachusetts schools. Much like suspensions, 42 percent of those removals were for offenses labeled as non-drug, non-violent, and non-criminal — something advocates say is inherently contradictory.

Some say the problem lies in the language of the law, which allows an emergency removal when a student’s continued presence poses a danger to other people or property, “or materially and substantially disrupts the order of the school.” A principal may immediately remove a student if “there is no alternative available to alleviate the danger or disruption,” according to statute.

Advocates have questioned what constitutes a “disruption,” and whether there are circumstances in which a disruption warrants an emergency removal rather than a formal suspension process or another type of discipline. Since 2022, districts have increasingly cited the non-drug, non-violent, non-criminal offense category for emergency removals, rising from 37 percent of all emergency removals in 2022 to 42 percent in 2025. Because the behavior in this category is undefined, it is difficult to determine what students are doing to be removed from school on this basis.

“The pandemic and the tremendous toll it took on student mental health resulted in more disruption and dysregulation in schools, and as a result, we are seeing a swing back toward removing students from school,” Cregor said. “But I think there’s some reasonable fear that districts are calling things emergency removals that are not emergencies.”

Since the pandemic, teachers and administrators in Massachusetts and beyond have spoken out about an uptick in violent, explosive behavior in the classroom. Gerald Koocher, former president of the American Psychological Association, said this behavior can be linked to feelings of loneliness and disconnectedness that arose during the pandemic, which did not go away when students returned to school.

“It put them in social isolation, it put them under stress, and it weakened their connection with school,” Dr. Koocher said of the pandemic. “There has been a broader pattern of youth violence, which includes firearms, especially among teenagers, and particularly in urban areas.”

But the state’s disciplinary data shows that some of the most common violent offenses occurring in schools, including physical attack (battery), threat of physical attack, and physical fights, have either returned to their pre-covid levels or slightly decreased. But, when it comes to emergency removals, these categories have been increasingly cited as the offense type.

For instance, the number of reported emergency removals administered for offenses labeled “physical attack” increased from 387 instances in 2018 to 1,133 instances in 2025. Yet, the total number of reported physical attacks in schools across the state decreased slightly from 8,136 in 2018 to 7,991 in 2025.

Chelsea Public Schools superintendent Almi Abeyta said six years after the pandemic hit, educators and administrators are still grappling with students’ social and emotional issues.

“At the end of the day, we don’t want children to be out of school,” she said. “But we’re seeing more dysregulation with our younger children — pre-K through grade 5 — than what we’ve noticed in the past. We have little kids that will just destroy an entire classroom.”

In 2024, legislation that would have prohibited the use of suspensions and expulsions on pre-K through Grade 3 students advanced out of the education committee. While the move was celebrated by child and student advocates, the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents opposed the bill, arguing that school administrators require flexibility when making disciplinary decisions. The bill ultimately died in the House, though there is a current version that is again awaiting legislative action after passing out of the Joint Committee on Education.

Abeyta said school staff do everything they can to intervene before suspending or removing a child. She said educators recognize the critical role that counselors, clinicians, and other behavioral support staff play. Yet budget cuts last year forced the district to reduce staff by more than 50 full-time employees.

“I left it up to the principals to decide, and none of them cut social workers or counselors,” Abeyta said.

Abeyta said emergency removals are mostly reserved for safety issues, though in 2025, nearly 44 percent of Chelsea’s emergency removals were for non-drug, non-violent, non-criminal offenses. In 2025, the district had the third highest emergency removal rate of the 26 Gateway City school districts, after Fitchburg and Holyoke. The number of removals in Chelsea grew from 20 in 2022 to 151 in 2025.

Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA) president Matt Bach said the trend in emergency removals is a symptom of “deeper issues” regarding districts’ ability to provide the best services to students, adding that schools are facing both a funding and staffing crisis.

“Is [the trend] paralleling the reduction in education professionals across the board? Is it paralleling a reduction in public education investment? Is it paralleling substandard curriculum products, which are choking school budgets and intensifying student disengagement?” Bach said. “The ratio between professionals and students in these districts is what’s going to matter most for student outcomes and behaviors.”

He said the MTA has encouraged restorative practices like increased recess time and reduced screen time, which have been shown to benefit dysregulated students. The association has also pushed for Gov. Maura Healey’s recent proposal to direct an additional $100 million to public school districts across the state. The funding would help communities manage growing financial challenges ahead of the new school year. The proposal, which must be approved by the Legislature, would add to the more than $7 billion already appropriated for K-12 education in the fiscal 2027 state budget.

The hope, Bach said, is that some of that funding could be used by districts to rehire staff that might have been laid off in the spring due to budget shortfalls around the state. Educators like Griffith say that without an adequate number of behavioral support staff, districts won’t be able to reduce their exclusionary discipline rates.

“When there is one social worker for 75 to 100 students with complex emotional needs, you’re not able to be proactive in supporting them,” she said. “Educators want to be proactive to try to prevent a crisis that could result in emergency removal. That’s the way we’re trained, but it’s often not what we’re able to do.”

A small policy change could help more kids aging out of foster care

When young adults age out of the Department of Children and Families at age 18 without a permanent family, they face myriad challenges living independently. Former foster children who age out of the system often have trouble securing housing and employment or staying in school.

That’s why DCF gives young adults an option to voluntarily sign back in to DCF care to receive services, including young adult support payments. These are payments of around $40 a day plus a clothing allowance, totaling approximately $16,700 a year, and can last until the recipient turns 23.

The money is intended to help with rent, utilities, car payments, college tuition, or any other expenses facing a young person starting out on their own. If the young adult is living with their foster family, the foster parent gets the money.

If they are living in an apartment, college dorm, with a romantic partner, with a relative, or in any other independent living arrangement, the young person gets the money.

However, there is one exception: Under department policy, a young adult living with a biological parent cannot get the payments.

For many young adults, this exception causes needless hardship. Attorneys with the Children’s Law Center of Massachusetts filed a lawsuit against DCF July 8 in Suffolk Superior Court challenging the biological parent exception. The department should seek to settle the case by instituting a policy that would let young adults living with a parent get support payments on a case-by-case basis, if they need them.

The plaintiff in the suit is an 18-year-old man with a mild intellectual disability referred to by the pseudonym John Doe. Doe was in the child welfare system, in multiple group homes, between ages 13 and 18. When he turned 18, he moved in with his mother in Lynn while he finished high school, which he did this June. He still meets with a DCF caseworker. Doe requested support payments to pay for rent, transportation, food, and other expenses. But his request was denied because he is living with a biological parent.

The lawsuit argues that the policy conflicts with state laws requiring the department to provide services, including support payments, to help young adults transition to independence. It also claims the policy wasn’t properly adopted and violates federal law.

Children’s Law Center attorney Alexis Williams Torrey said particularly given the high price of housing in Massachusetts, young people may move in with a parent because they can’t afford to rent an apartment. But they still have expenses. “If they can live with a parent and avoid homelessness while they get their feet on the ground, it may very well be the safest and most stable option while they enter the workforce or they finish school,” Williams Torrey said.

A DCF spokesperson declined to comment, citing the pending litigation.

It’s not clear how many young people move in with a parent after aging out of the child welfare system. In March 2026, according to state data, there were 1,914 people between the ages of 18 and 21 being served by DCF, 902 of whom were classified as living independently (rather than in a group home or with a foster family).

In fiscal 2025, the state paid out $2.9 million in young adult support payments, according to state data obtained by the Children’s Law Center and shared with the editorial board. (Some payments are eligible for federal government reimbursement.)

A 2024 Boston Globe column mentioned a young man who moved in with his mother after dropping out of college for financial reasons without realizing his support payments would end. The family was evicted.

The editorial board recently spoke to an 18-year-old woman in Weymouth with a disability who left a residential treatment program, where DCF had placed her, and moved in with her mother, who works at KFC, while finishing high school. The woman, who asked that her name be withheld to protect her privacy, said she could have used support payments to help her afford food and health insurance. Money, she said, is a “very hard struggle for my family and me.”

Not every state has young adult support payments, and different states structure them differently. Washington and California both give payments to young adults living with a biological parent.

From a budgetary perspective, changing the policy means giving a small amount of money to a small number of young adults. From a human perspective, this could help a young adult who had a difficult childhood get an education, buy a car to get to work, or remain housed while they figure out their next steps. That’s worth the money.

Were you denied by Medicare Advantage? The odds say appeal | opinion

If you had a 9 in 10 chance of winning something, wouldn’t you would go for it? Those are odds worth taking. What if it was not only something you wanted, but something you needed, like medically necessary services in a skilled nursing facility?

This is the situation many older adults and people with disabilities find themselves in if they’re enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan. These plans offer a way to receive Medicare benefits through private insurance companies, rather than directly from the federal government. Medicare Advantage plans require “prior authorization” (pre-approval) before they cover many services. In theory, prior authorization prevents unnecessary, costly care. In practice, doctors and patients say that it has become overused and burdensome, causing delays and denials of care that patients need.

When a Medicare Advantage plan denies prior authorization, the patient has a right to appeal. It’s important to understand and make use of this right to appeal, because plan denials are frequently overturned. A new federal report examined nursing facility care specifically, and its findings show just how often these pre-approval denials are wrong.

A June report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General found that when patients and providers appeal Medicare Advantage denials of prior authorizations for nursing facility care, they win 95% of the time. Skilled nursing facility care, which includes physical and occupational therapy as well as nursing, helps bridge the gap between a hospital discharge and the ability to return home with as much independence as possible. Given how often denials are overturned — and how critical these services are — appealing is clearly worthwhile.

Every written denial from a Medicare Advantage plan must explain how to appeal, and patients can also ask their health care provider to support the appeal with medical documentation. Because appeals have deadlines, it is important to act promptly and ask for help if you need it. Many appeals succeed because additional information shows that the requested care meets Medicare’s coverage rules.

Need a news break? Check out the all new PLAY hub with puzzles, games and more!

But most Medicare Advantage denials are not appealed. The federal analysis found that only 18% of initial denials for nursing facility care were appealed, for example. As the report notes, the “extremely high overturn rate indicates that some enrollees were initially denied medically necessary care,” and it “raises concerns about denials that were not appealed.”

Get the Inside Massachusetts Politics newsletter in your inbox.

Our expert roundup of the Massachusetts politics that matters.

Delivery: Thu

Your Email

Why do Medicare Advantage plans deny coverage so frequently? The federal watchdog report points to profit incentives for the plans. These plans are paid a fixed monthly amount per patient, regardless of how many services that person receives. The report flags this as “a central concern” for denials of care. Every denial that’s not appealed can save money for the plan.

The result is predictable: Medicare Advantage plans deny, and many people who could receive coverage never appeal. They may not understand they have the right to appeal, or they assume an appeal won’t be successful, or they’re simply overwhelmed by the bureaucratic hurdles. Research shows these barriers discourage patients from pursing health care benefits. As a result, patients may opt for cheaper, less effective care, pay out of pocket, or go without needed care altogether. These concerns are heightened for older adults and disabled individuals who rely on Medicare for health coverage.

The good news is that Massachusetts Medicare beneficiaries can get help with Medicare Advantage denials and more by reaching out to the Medicare Advocacy Project (MAP). MAP’s experienced advocates provide free legal assistance for Medicare-related issues. In central and western Massachusetts, MAP can be reached via Community Legal Aid, which provides free civil legal assistance to older adults and low-income individuals. We encourage anyone facing a Medicare denial or appeal to apply for assistance through our website, www.communitylegal.org, or through our intake line, 855-252-5342.

Reform is needed to fix a system that gets it wrong far too often. Older adults and people with disabilities should not have to fight so hard for nursing facility services and other medical care that they need and qualify for by law. U.S. taxpayers should expect Medicare Advantage plans to deliver the health care they pay those plans to provide.

But for now, the takeaway is simple: If a Medicare Advantage plan denies your prior authorization request, don’t assume the answer is final. Read the denial notice, pay attention to deadlines, and ask for help if you need it. Given the odds, an appeal can make a difference.

Alice Bers is director of the Massachusetts Medicare Advocacy Project, which provides free legal help, advice and representation to older adults and people with disabilities who are navigating Medicare coverage denials, appeals and enrollment blocks.

Volunteer lawyers guide tenants at New Bedford Housing Court

Below is the full text of a The New Bedford Light article from 06/26/26.

by Gerardo Beltran Salinas

 

New Leaders Take Reins at Community Legal Aid Offices

Below is the full text of a BusinessWest article from 06/24/26.

My Turn: World Elder Abuse Awareness Day — Let’s end the silence

Below is the full text of a Greenfield Recorder article from 06/12/26.

It takes courage to protect workers’ rights | Rory MacAneney and Madison O’Brien

Below is the full text of a MassLive article from 06/02/26.

My Turn: Empowering older adults — the importance of advanced directives

Below is the full text of a Greenfield Recorder article from 05/18/26.

One year in, backers of Massachusetts’s eviction sealing law say there is promise — and an awareness problem

Below is the full text of a CommonWealth Beacon article from 05/18/26.

by Jennifer Smith

AFTER MORE THAN a decade of advocacy, a new law took effect a year ago that lets tenants petition to seal the court records of past eviction cases. The biggest roadblock for implementation turns out to be that almost no one knows the option exists.

Massachusetts courts logged more than a million eviction case filings since 1988. In the year since the law took effect last May, just 6,284 petitions to seal cases have been filed.

Advocates see both promise in the process and plenty of work to be done to make tenants aware of their right to seek to have past eviction cases – the “Scarlet E” – sealed from public view.

“Few people actually know about the law,” said Annette Duke, senior housing attorney at the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, which helped develop the legislation and has led outreach since it took effect. “If you had an eviction 20 years ago or 10 years ago, you may not be paying attention.”

The eviction sealing law, included in the Affordable Homes Act signed by Gov. Maura Healey in August 2024, gives tenants the right to petition courts to remove certain eviction records from public view. An eviction record — even from a case a tenant won, or that was dismissed — shows up in the public court database and in the paid screening algorithms most landlords use to screen applicants.

The process for sealing the record depends on the outcome of the case, the type of eviction case, and whether the appeal period has passed. Broadly, cases where the tenant won or the case was dismissed can be sealed immediately, but if the eviction involved an agreement to pay late rent or claims of some sort of criminal activity, there can be additional steps during court proceedings.

Black renters in Massachusetts are on average 2.4 times more likely to have an eviction filed against them than white renters, a disparity that is wider for Black women.