Should we change policy for interpreters

[bsievers4]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? ohio
It is our office policy to provide interpreters for the hearing impared and non-english speaking (one of the three physicians will not provide interpreters). We provide them, but we do this at the beginning of the of the scheule for either morning (8am) or afternoon (1pm) patients. We do this in order to ensure we are paying for face to face time only withe the physician and not waiting time. Interpreter services usually cost more than we are reimbursed by insurance for the visit and we have this policy in order to control cost. A hearing impared patient wanted a time outside of that, needs us to provide the interpreter and feels it is a violation of her rights for us to not provide an interpreter at a different appt time. Is our policy a violation of her rights and if so, does it apply to our non-english speaking patients as well. Please help, as we do not wish to violate anyones rights, but also want to control costs.

 

[racer72]

It depends on one's defintion of "reasonable accommodations". In my book, your policy is reasonable.

 

[CdwJava]

I would have to agree.

Heck, given the added expense, it might even be possible to not provide translation services at all. Around here if you want a doctor that can speak or has staff that speaks your language, you find him or her. I do not know of any local offices that go out of their way to hire a translator of any kind.

 

[Antigone*]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? ohio
It is our office policy to provide interpreters for the hearing impared and non-english speaking (one of the three physicians will not provide interpreters). We provide them, but we do this at the beginning of the of the scheule for either morning (8am) or afternoon (1pm) patients. We do this in order to ensure we are paying for face to face time only withe the physician and not waiting time. Interpreter services usually cost more than we are reimbursed by insurance for the visit and we have this policy in order to control cost. A hearing impared patient wanted a time outside of that, needs us to provide the interpreter and feels it is a violation of her rights for us to not provide an interpreter at a different appt time. Is our policy a violation of her rights and if so, does it apply to our non-english speaking patients as well. Please help, as we do not wish to violate anyones rights, but also want to control costs.

I'm sorry but I was not aware that you HAD to provide interpreter services at all. Why doesn't the patient make their own accomodations? I do agree however that the policy you do have is reasonable.

 

[mlane58]

Your policy is more than reasonable. The requirement under the ADA is to provide “effective communication.” If effective communication can be provided by other means, an interpreter is not be required and most cetainly there isn't a requirement to accomodate appointment times.