There is a particular kind of cruelty in a system that teaches a patient they are welcome before teaching the physician how to care for them.

We have become good at the front door. Ramps, quiet rooms, sensory kits, dimmable lights — the visible architecture of inclusion. These things matter. But they are accommodations for arriving. They are not medicine. For children with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), the harder, quieter failure happens inside the exam room, after the patient has already made it through the door.

This is what I keep coming back to. Not policy, not systems, though both need to change, but the thing we almost never say out loud: Most physicians in this country were never taught to care for this population. And most of the ones entering training right now won’t be either. Simply put, we mistake accommodations for competence.

I’m a second-year medical student, and I’ve spent much of this year pursuing coursework and clinical experiences focused on IDD care: trauma-informed communication, nutrition for patients with IDD, and conducting clinical encounters with patients who may not communicate in conventional ways. What that experience revealed, more than anything, is that:

The knowledge already exists.

The frameworks exist.

But, the problem isn’t scientific. It’s institutional.

Consider what that gap looks like in practice:

About 1 in 6 children in the U.S. has a developmental disability. Epilepsy alone affects roughly 26% of individuals with IDD, compared to about 1% of the general population. In clinical settings not built around this population, seizure activity is frequently missed or misattributed. Not because physicians don’t care. Because they were trained on patients who can describe their symptoms, and these patients cannot. The behavioral changes that signal distress in a nonverbal child — the withdrawal, the irritability, the disrupted sleep — look, to the untrained eye, like behavior. Not like pain. Not like a seizure coming on. Not like a medication side effect that has been quietly accumulating for months.

Researchers call this diagnostic overshadowing: the stubborn tendency to attribute every new symptom a patient with IDD presents to their primary diagnosis rather than investigating it on its own terms. The child with Down syndrome who stops eating well is “grieving,” maybe. Or “anxious.” Or “just having a hard time.” It takes a physician specifically prepared for this population to stop and ask whether something else is going on — a thyroid problem, an undetected pain source, a GI issue the patient has been silently tolerating because they don’t have the words for it.

Only about 40% of physicians feel confident providing patients with disabilities care equivalent to what they’d offer anyone else. More than half of medical students receive no meaningful IDD training at all. The National Inclusive Curriculum for Health Education-Medical — the most organized effort to change this — has reached roughly 10% of American medical schools since its founding. We have had years to fix this. We have not fixed it.

Then there is the transition.

For a child with IDD, pediatric care at its best is a coordinated, family-centered world. There is a team that knows the history. There is a physician who understands that the family member/friend/caregiver in the corner of every appointment is not a complication but one of the most important informants in the room. A language develops, over years, between patient, caregiver, and physician.

And then the child turns 18.

What waits is not a parallel system. It is a fragmented collection of adult physicians trained on a different kind of patient, many of whom have never encountered this diagnosis before. Families describe starting over: re-explaining conditions that are in the chart, fighting for accommodations that should be standard. Research is consistent: Absent or poorly structured transition planning leads to care gaps, worse health outcomes, and higher emergency utilization. Clinicians sometimes call it “falling off a cliff.” Families living it don’t need the metaphor. Transition planning should begin between ages 12 and 14. Most families are lucky if it starts at 17. Many report the conversation never happens at all.

What I keep returning to, as someone entering this field, is how solvable this problem is. The knowledge base for quality IDD care is not thin. Sensory-aware protocols, person-centered training, caregiver integration (as simple as asking patients who they brought with them today), and structured transition frameworks are all documented, teachable, and ready for implementation. What is missing is not the curriculum. It is the expectation that every clinician learns it.

That distinction matters. This is not a problem waiting on a breakthrough. It is a problem waiting on a decision by medical schools that preparing physicians to care for 1 in 6 children is not optional enrichment. Not a special interest track. Not something to fit in if there is room.

I think about what it means to be a patient with IDD moving through a system that has installed all the signals of welcome without doing the underlying work. The quiet room. The sensory toolkit. The intake form with the checkbox for special accommodations. And then the physician who walks in — competent, caring, and thoroughly unprepared — who doesn’t know how to take this history, who will attribute the new symptom to the old diagnosis, who was never asked to learn otherwise.

That patient deserves better. And that physician does too.

We have spent years redesigning spaces for patients with IDD. The harder task is redesigning medical education. The waiting room is ready. The question is whether we are going to make the physician ready as well.

How should medical schools prepare physicians for patients with IDD? Share in the comments.

Image by fedrelena / Getty