Comments on: Laws of Unintended Consequences

By: California Advocate

California Advocate — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 06:04:54 +0000

The flip side of the coin here is that while doctors and lawyers are among the highest wage earners in the US they are also the most vociferous in resisting providing requested communication accommodations!

By: California Advocate

California Advocate — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 06:02:51 +0000

Yes, it is true that doctors, lawyers, accountants and many other public services often end up paying more for the communication accommodation than they earn in fees from the appointment. However, the Dept of Justice (DOJ) has determined that the undue burden definition requires looking at the total YEARLY income of the service provider versus the cost of providing a communication accommodation a few times per year. When looked at from that perspective the TOTAL cost of providing the accommodations is usually not that large. And, as pointed out by other commenters, the IRS provides both a tax credit and a tax deduction for the costs of providing accommodations each year.
The accommodation needs of deaf and hard of hearing consumers are unique compared with most other disabilities because they are an ongoing cost. Most disability accommodations involve physical alterations to buildings and facilities and once completed do not have to be paid for again. Interpreters and CART accommodations have to be paid over and over. That is one aspect that was not fully considered by Congress when writing the ADA. It would be great if the IRS would allow a greater tax credit for the costs of accommodations!

By: jsg

jsg — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:18:16 +0000

I’m not an accountant so it would be great if an accountant can step in and fill in the blanks what the doctor can do to recoup the cost. And does the doctor FULLY recoup the cost or PARTIALLY recoup the cost?

But maybe the doctors do not know they can get tax credits. Or maybe the doctors know that there’s tax credit but it doesn’t fully recoup the cost. Or maybe the doctors know about the tax credits but it’s a bookkeeping hassle.

So no deaf patients = no hassles.

We can talk about the problem or we can come up with solutions. The UbiDuo should be considered as part of the solution. A VRI can also be a solution, if feasible.

By: Dianrez

Dianrez — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:05:25 +0000

The doctor is able to get a tax credit, if my information is right, so that he does not lose any money by seeing deaf patients. This is not well understood, and we are seeing deaf people turned down by lawyers and doctors now.

Yes, there is a dark side to the ADA and this is not discussed enough in Congress or by the NAD. We need to get t6hem moving on exploring this.

By: jsg

jsg — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:14:33 +0000

I don’t think you fully understand the article. She refuses the pen and pad method. She demanded a sign language interpreter. Easy to say that because she doesn’t have to pay for the interpreter, the doctor does.

She was lucky that this doctor was willing to treat her while losing money.

However many other doctors will certainly exercise his/her rights to do whatever is necessary to stay in business! And if that means not seeing deaf patients that demands sign language interpreter, so be it.
Good luck proving medical discrimination.

This was not the INTENTION of the ADA law. But this is the CONSEQUENCES of the ADA law.

So either you can complain about it and get sicker or suck it up and see the doctor without an interpreter.