Lantern & Rune Consulting

Lantern & Rune Consulting For info, contact me at [email protected]

Welcome to Lantern & Rune ✨
My mission is to guide and support people navigating disability, medical leave, and benefits, helping them feel understood, empowered, and less alone in the process.

When people talk about disability rights in the United States, many conversations eventually lead back to one part of th...
05/23/2026

When people talk about disability rights in the United States, many conversations eventually lead back to one part of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973:

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

And historically, it marked a major shift in how disability itself was being understood.

Before Section 504, inaccessible schools, workplaces, transportation systems, hospitals, universities, and public programs were often treated as unfortunate but normal parts of life.

The burden of adaptation was usually placed on disabled individuals themselves.

But Section 504 introduced a different idea:

Disabled individuals could not be excluded from federally funded programs solely because of disability.

That shift mattered enormously.

Because the conversation was increasingly moving away from:

“Should disabled people receive support?”

and toward:

“Should disabled people be excluded from participation at all?”

The broader civil rights movement heavily influenced this shift. Disability advocates increasingly argued that exclusion itself could be discriminatory—and that accessibility was not only an individual issue, but a systems issue too.

And importantly, passing the law did not automatically create change.

Implementation stalled for years, and disability activists ultimately organized the historic 504 sit-ins in 1977 to pressure the federal government to enforce the law.

The sit-ins became one of the most important disability rights protests in U.S. history.

Because disabled people were increasingly demanding:

access
participation
enforcement
and institutional accountability

rather than simply asking for sympathy or charity.

Section 504 did not eliminate barriers overnight.

But it marked one of the clearest moments where disability was increasingly being framed not only as a medical or economic issue—but as a question of rights, access, and participation in public life.

Read more on my site:
www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

Not all Medicaid works the same way.One reason for that is that Medicaid eligibility is divided into different categorie...
05/22/2026

Not all Medicaid works the same way.

One reason for that is that Medicaid eligibility is divided into different categories — including something called MAGI and Non-MAGI Medicaid.

MAGI stands for Modified Adjusted Gross Income.

MAGI Medicaid is generally used for groups like children, pregnant individuals, parents, and adults covered through Medicaid expansion in many states.

This type of Medicaid usually looks primarily at income.

In most cases, it does not include an asset limit.

Non-MAGI Medicaid works differently.

This category is more commonly associated with disability-based Medicaid, long-term care services, and certain older adult populations.

In addition to income, Non-MAGI Medicaid often includes asset limits and more detailed financial eligibility rules.

That’s part of why two people on “Medicaid” can have very different experiences.

One person may qualify through a MAGI pathway with no asset test at all.

Another may qualify through a disability-related pathway with strict limits on savings and resources.

The programs fall under the same broader Medicaid system, but the rules behind them are not always the same.

Understanding the difference between MAGI and Non-MAGI Medicaid helps explain why Medicaid conversations can sometimes feel confusing or inconsistent.

People are often talking about entirely different eligibility structures without realizing it.

I walk through this framework in more detail on my site:
www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

By the early 1970s, the United States had already built multiple disability-related systems.SSDI existed. SSI had just b...
05/21/2026

By the early 1970s, the United States had already built multiple disability-related systems.

SSDI existed. SSI had just been created. Medicare and Medicaid existed.

But many of those systems still largely approached disability through the lens of eligibility, inability, support, and income replacement.

And in 1973, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 marked an important shift in the conversation.

The law reflected growing federal attention toward employment, vocational rehabilitation, independent living, accessibility, and participation in public life.

And importantly, the underlying assumption was beginning to change.

Not: disabled people cannot participate.

But increasingly: many disabled people can participate if barriers and supports are addressed.

That was a major conceptual shift.

This period also reflected broader cultural changes happening across the country. Disability advocacy was becoming more visible. Deinstitutionalization efforts were growing. Public conversations around rights, access, and inequality were expanding.

And accessibility itself was increasingly being treated not only as an individual problem—but as a systems issue.

The Rehabilitation Act did not suddenly eliminate barriers.

Implementation was uneven, and advocacy remained critical.

But it marked an important transition point in disability history.

The conversation was increasingly shifting from:

“How do we support disabled people?”

to:

“How do we build systems that do not exclude them in the first place?”

More on my website:
www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

Many systems are built around the idea of temporary disruption.Something happens. A person needs support. Recovery begin...
05/20/2026

Many systems are built around the idea of temporary disruption.

Something happens. A person needs support. Recovery begins. Life returns to normal.

The timeline feels clear.

Temporary hardship. Temporary leave. Temporary instability.

But many lives don’t actually unfold that way.

Modern medicine has dramatically expanded survival, long-term treatment, and disease management. Many conditions that once led to severe impairment or death now involve ongoing management instead.

That’s an incredible thing.

But systems, workplaces, and social expectations often still operate on much older assumptions about illness and recovery.

There’s a huge gap between “alive” and “fully recovered.”

More people are living in that space than many systems are designed to recognize.

I see people recovering physically while financially depleted. People who technically returned to work, but are still struggling to sustain it. People cycling on and off support systems because their lives don’t fit neatly into “crisis” or “recovered.”

Many systems are designed around short-term interruption.

But many people don’t experience instability temporarily.

This week’s Mid-Week Reflection looks at what happens when support timelines don’t match the reality of long-term instability.

You can read the full reflection here:
www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

Starting June 1, 2026, Illinois employees will gain a new workplace protection specifically tied to NICU stays.Under Ill...
05/19/2026

Starting June 1, 2026, Illinois employees will gain a new workplace protection specifically tied to NICU stays.

Under Illinois’ new Family Neonatal Intensive Care Leave Act (NICU Leave Act):

• Employers with 16–50 employees must provide up to 10 days of unpaid, job-protected leave
• Employers with 51+ employees must provide up to 20 days
• The leave is separate from FMLA
• Employees cannot be forced to use paid leave first

NICU stays are often sudden and medically complex. Families may be navigating emergency deliveries, premature birth, extended hospitalization, and caregiving needs all at once.

And importantly, not every employee qualifies for FMLA protections.

Illinois is one of the first states to create a NICU-specific leave protection like this, reflecting a growing recognition that neonatal intensive care situations often do not fit neatly into traditional leave structures.

The law takes effect June 1, 2026.

Read more on my site:
www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

Myth:Most people in the U.S. get paid maternity leave.This belief is incredibly common — and in many ways, understandabl...
05/18/2026

Myth:
Most people in the U.S. get paid maternity leave.

This belief is incredibly common — and in many ways, understandable. People often see coworkers take leave after having a baby while still receiving some income, or hear about paid leave programs through employers or state policies. Over time, those experiences can begin to feel universal.

But they are not.

The United States does not have a universal federal paid maternity leave program.

What federal law does provide is Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) — unpaid, job-protected leave for eligible employees. FMLA allows certain workers to take protected time away from work for medical and family reasons, including childbirth and bonding.

But even that protection is limited.

Not all employers are covered by FMLA, and not all employees are eligible. Workers generally must:

work for a covered employer,
meet length-of-service requirements,
and meet hour thresholds before qualifying.

And importantly: FMLA itself does not require pay.

Part of the confusion comes from how leave is structured in practice.

Many employers offer short-term disability (STD) benefits, and some offer separate paid parental leave policies. Employees may also be required or permitted to use accrued paid time off during leave. These benefits often run concurrently with FMLA, meaning some employees receive income while also using their federally protected leave time.

But those benefits still vary widely.

Some employees receive full pay. Others receive partial wage replacement through STD plans, often after waiting periods and only for a limited portion of recovery time. Some are required to exhaust PTO at the same time. Others have no paid leave available at all.

Access also depends heavily on employer size, industry, job structure, and state policy.

A growing number of states have implemented paid family leave programs, but they still represent the minority — despite how frequently these policies appear in national conversations.

The result is a fragmented system where paid leave exists for some workers, under some circumstances, but is far from universal.

Seeing paid leave exist in some workplaces is not the same as having a universal paid leave system.

And when we assume these protections are widely available, we can overlook how many people are navigating pregnancy, childbirth, recovery, and early parenthood with limited income protection — or none at all.

I’m collecting these myths — and why they persist — on the Lantern & Rune site:
www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

Two weeks into maternity leave, an employee got a call that their role had been eliminated during an organizational rest...
05/17/2026

Two weeks into maternity leave, an employee got a call that their role had been eliminated during an organizational restructure.

A lot of people assume protected leave completely shields someone from layoffs or restructuring.

It doesn’t.

But that also doesn’t mean employees on leave lose all protections either.

Cases like this are often far more nuanced than people realize — especially when postpartum recovery, healthcare coverage, and pressure to return to work early all collide at once.

This week’s case study looks at the complicated reality of layoffs during maternity leave, and why these situations can feel so destabilizing even when a restructuring itself may be lawful.

More on my site:
www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

By the early 1970s, the system had become increasingly layered.Older public assistance programs for older adults, blind ...
05/16/2026

By the early 1970s, the system had become increasingly layered.

Older public assistance programs for older adults, blind individuals, and disabled individuals still existed alongside newer programs like SSDI, Medicare, and Medicaid.

But those systems varied significantly from state to state.

Eligibility rules differed. Payment levels differed. Administrative processes differed.

And support often depended heavily on where someone lived.

So in 1972, Congress created Supplemental Security Income, which officially went into effect in 1974.

SSI replaced several older public assistance categories with one federally administered income support program for older adults, blind individuals, and disabled individuals with low income.

And importantly, SSI was different from SSDI.

SSDI was tied to work history.

SSI was not.

SSI acknowledged that some people would need long-term support outside traditional workforce-based systems.

But even as SSI created more national consistency, many of the underlying tensions remained.

Disability definitions were still strict. Resource limits still existed. Medicaid still operated differently from state to state.

The system became more unified in some ways.

But it didn’t become fully unified.

And honestly, that tension never really went away.

More on my site:
www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

Some public benefit programs don’t just look at income.They also look at what you own.That’s where asset limits come in....
05/15/2026

Some public benefit programs don’t just look at income.

They also look at what you own.

That’s where asset limits come in.

Asset limits are rules that restrict how much someone can have in savings or other countable resources in order to qualify for certain benefits — especially programs tied to disability and long-term support, including some forms of Medicaid and SSI.

The idea is that benefits are intended for people with limited financial resources.

But in practice, these rules can create difficult tradeoffs.

People may feel pressure to avoid building savings, delay financial milestones, or remain under strict resource thresholds in order to maintain access to healthcare or income support.

And in many cases, those assets are not signs of wealth — they’re emergency savings, family support, or the small amount of financial cushion someone has managed to build.

That’s part of why asset limits can feel so emotionally and financially complicated.

The issue isn’t just whether someone has resources.

It’s how the system defines financial security — and how much stability a person is allowed to build before support is affected.

Some states and programs have started to relax or eliminate certain asset limits, while others still maintain very strict thresholds.

Understanding asset limits helps explain why public benefits can sometimes feel tied to ongoing financial vulnerability.

It’s not just about income.

It’s also about what the system allows people to keep.

I walk through this framework in more detail on my site.
www.lanternandruneconsulting.com





By the late 1960s, the system had grown significantly.Social Security existed. Disability benefits existed. Medicare and...
05/14/2026

By the late 1960s, the system had grown significantly.

Social Security existed. Disability benefits existed. Medicare and Medicaid existed. Food assistance programs were expanding.

But as more programs were added, something else became clearer:

The system wasn’t operating as one unified structure.

It was operating as layers.

And at the same time, the country itself was changing.

The civil rights movement, anti-war activism, women’s movement, and broader conversations about inequality were all reshaping what people expected from public systems.

Questions that once focused mostly on survival were becoming larger.

What about healthcare access?
What about childhood development?
What about long-term disability?
What about poverty that persisted even when people were working?

The system kept expanding in response to visible gaps.

But each response added another layer.

And different programs still had different rules, different eligibility structures, and different definitions of need.

The system was growing.

But it wasn’t becoming unified.

And that tension never really went away.

More on my site:
www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

Many systems expect people to function as their own case managers.Track the paperwork.Remember the deadlines.Coordinate ...
05/13/2026

Many systems expect people to function as their own case managers.

Track the paperwork.
Remember the deadlines.
Coordinate between providers, insurers, employers, and agencies.
Keep everything moving.

People are often expected to manage care, benefits, insurance, documentation, and communication all at once — even when they are sick, overwhelmed, caregiving, working, or already stretched thin.

And much of this work is invisible.

The system assumes people have the time, energy, organizational capacity, and support needed to hold everything together themselves.

But those resources aren’t evenly distributed.

And they’re often most limited in the moments when support is needed most.

This week’s Mid-Week Reflection looks at what happens when systems quietly shift coordination work onto the people trying to access help.

You can read the full reflection here:
www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

Address

Columbus, OH

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Lantern & Rune Consulting posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category