Search

The article focuses on the implications of the Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller decision for Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It mentions emotional distress damages under disability discrimination laws like Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Topics include the historical and legal context of these statutes, the Court's reasoning in Cummings and the potential impact on future disability discrimination.

COVID-19 hospitalizations among unvaccinated individuals cost billions of dollars. More employers are considering imposing a premium surcharge on employees participating in the company's health plan who are not vaccinated against COVID-19. These employers see this approach as similar to health premium surcharges for tobacco use, justifying the higher premiums on the basis that unvaccinated individuals could cause the plan to experience higher hospitalization and related costs. However, imposing a surcharge on unvaccinated employees will require employers to think through legal and policy implications and the interests of their employees and their businesses. Employers should weigh their vaccination goals against these interests and consider whether a legally compliant surcharge would further their goals. Employers should carefully consider the prevailing culture among their employees and assess whether the policy would be effective and noncoercive. Premium surcharges may be effective for some but not all employers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. To explore the effect of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on disparities in access to health care based on disability status, as well as age, income, race, and ethnicity. Methods. In this study, I used logistic regression to analyze nationally representative data from 128 000 respondents to the US National Health Interview Survey from 2008 to 2010 and 2015 to 2017. Outcome variables were uninsurance over the previous 12 months, delayed or forgone health care for reasons of cost, and having a regular provider at a doctor's office or health clinic. Results. Over the period when the ACA was implemented, large existing disparities in access to health care were reduced for people with certain types of disabilities, young adults aged 19 to 25 years, and low-income families. Conclusions. The ACA improved overall access to health care and reduced some disparities, but substantial disparities persist. Disability status remains associated with much greater risk of delayed or forgone care, and mental health disability is associated with greater likelihood of uninsurance. Public Health Implications. The ACA partially achieved its goals and must not be weakened or rolled back. Further policy efforts are needed to address the remaining disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Should Medicaid pay for supportive housing for homeless persons? After describing current limits on how states can use Medicaid funds to support housing, this article considers whether justice requires treating Medicaid recipients residing in nursing homes and Medicaid recipients needing supportive housing similarly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

United States' courts have played a limited, yet key, role in shaping health equity in three areas of law: racial discrimination, disability discrimination, and constitutional rights. Executive and administrative action has been much more instrumental than judicial decisions in advancing racial equality in health care. Courts have been reluctant to intervene on racial justice because overt discrimination has largely disappeared, and the Supreme Court has interpreted civil rights laws in a fashion that restricts judicial authority to address more subtle or diffused forms of disparate impact. In contrast, courts have been more active in limiting disability discrimination by expanding the conditions that are considered disabling and by articulating and applying the operative concepts "reasonable accommodation" and "other qualified" in the context of both treatment and insurance coverage decisions. Finally, regarding constitutional rights, courts have had limited opportunity to intervene because, outside of specially protected arenas such as reproduction, constitutional law gives government wide discretion to define health and safety goals and methods. Thus, courts have had only a limited role in shaping health equity in the United States. It remains to be seen whether this will change under the Affordable Care Act or whatever health reform measure might replace it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: People with multiple sclerosis (MS) are known to face a multitude of challenges as they attempt to re-initiate or maintain their careers following onset of the disease. OBJECTIVE: Less is known, however, about the subjective experiences of people with MS regarding employment barriers. METHODS: Using the results of a larger national survey of the employment concerns of people with MS that was conducted in 2014-2015 as a basis for data collection, this qualitative study involved six focus groups comprising 20 people with MS and 27 MS service providers. RESULTS: Focus group participants offered subjective perspectives on and suggestions for addressing employment barriers that represented four major themes: understanding the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, on-the-job accommodations and the Americans with Disabilities Act, reassignment as a job retention strategy, and disclosure of disability. CONCLUSION: Findings are discussed within the context of existing literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article makes the case that social workers and social welfare advocates need to be aware of pregnancy discrimination law to better advocate for individual clients and for changes in the existing law. It is one piece of gender discrimination and inequity. This article reviews the current law around the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, including the recent holding in Young v. UPS and other relevant case law. It also reviews recent changes made by the Affordable Care Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as related state laws designed to address pregnancy discrimination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, corporate wellness programs have become a routine aspect of the employer-provided health-insurance system. While they vary tremendously in their requirements and incentives, what these programs share is the common goal of modifying employee behavior to improve health and, as a result, to lower costs. However, the effectiveness of wellness programs has been called into question. This Article offers one possible reason for these shortfalls by revealing an assumption underlying wellness programs: encouraging people to make healthier decisions requires that they have access to meaningful choices. Put simply, wellness programs assume personal autonomy. Yet the growing literature on the social determinants of health has revealed that, due to socioeconomic factors and other structural barriers, the ability to make healthy decisions is not equally available to all Americans. We are not equally autonomous. Recognizing this reality can empower employers and health insurers to offer wellness programs that do not assume autonomy but instead facilitate it. The Article concludes with examples of autonomy-enhancing policies for promoting health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on requirement for employee wellness programs under the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) which provides additional barriers to healthcare insurance for individuals with disabilities. Topics discussed include how the healthcare industry discriminates against individuals with disabilities, reasonable requirement under the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) wellness program provision and cost ofmedical coverage to the employee.

The recovery movement, which broadly recognizes the ability of people with mental illnesses to participate in the mainstream of society, stems from a confluence of factors, including longitudinal data showing that many people eventually recover from serious mental illness. Perhaps as important to the emergence and growth of the recovery movement has been the increasing role that people "in recovery" have played in advocating for person-centered care, greater self-determination for those with mental illnesses, and an enhanced focus on restoring functioning for individuals above and beyond symptom reduction. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 redefined serious forms of mental illness as disabilities, which led to the development of a range of accommodations to enable people with psychiatric disabilities to live in their own homes, work, go to school, and perform other normative adult roles such as parent and parishioner even while suffering symptoms. The Affordable Care Act provides additional levers for expanding the use of peer health navigators and shifting care to a collaborative model in which people can play active roles in their own care. While stigma and discrimination continue to pose formidable obstacles, the foundations have been laid for mental health practice to come closer to resembling health care for other medical conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the proposed regulation of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that limits certain rewards provided through wellness programs. Topics discussed include provision under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regarding eliminating the general practice of creating gated levels of a health plan; wellness program restrictions imposed by the Affordable Care Act; and use of financial incentives to coerce employees to participate in a program.

In an effort to encourage employers to institute employee wellness programs, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("AC A ") increases the permissible financial incentives employers may offer their employees in exchange for participation in such programs. The Americans with Disabilities Act ('A D A "), however, prohibits employers from subjecting employees to disability-related medical inquiries and exams unless such inquiries and exams are voluntary. I f the financial incentive tied to the participation in a wellness program is so coercive as to render participation involuntary, such an incentive structure violates the ADA. This Note examines the statutory conflict between the ACA and the ADA with regard to incentive-based employee wellness programs. Drawing on statutory and regulatory language, legislative history, and wellness programs in practice, this Note explains the likely discriminatory effects of wellness programs with large financial inducements. This Note concludes that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission must promulgate new regulations that limit the permissible incentives for participatory wellness programs and explicitly address the A D A 's applicability to incentive-based wellness-program provisions so that both employers and employees may determine their rights under the law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The possible integration of genomic sequencing (including whole‐genome and whole‐exome sequencing) into the three contexts addressed in this special report—state‐mandated screening programs, clinical care, and direct‐to‐consumer services—raises related but distinct legal issues. This essay will outline the legal issues surrounding the integration of genomic sequencing into state newborn screening programs, parental rights to refuse and access sequencing for their newborns in clinical and direct‐to‐consumer care, and privacy‐related legal issues attending the use of sequencing in newborns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: May 21, 2018, marks the tenth anniversary of the signing into law of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The Congressional deliberations for GINA were long and difficult. The original bill was introduced in 1995, and for many years, it did not look as if the bill would ever emerge from committee. Several of its provisions raised concerns for insurers, employers, and other stakeholders. After thirteen years, the controversial provisions were either deleted, revised, or clarified. At this ten‐year mark, it is appropriate to take stock of GINA. In light of GINA's glacial legislative history, it is reasonable to start thinking about the necessity, wisdom, and feasibility of amending GINA or enacting new legislation to address unresolved or emerging issues of genetic discrimination and trends in genetics, genomics, precision medicine, and related technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An essay is presented which examines the policy objectives of the U.S. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) and the U.S. Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) with the employer wellness incentives. It mentions that primary purpose of an incentive limit in the ADA with the voluntariness of employees' provision of information and relationship between disability and wellness. It also mentions that proposed rule of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Context In keeping with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Congress revised the law related to workplace wellness programs. In June 2013, the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services passed the final regulations, updating their 2006 regulatory framework. Participatory programs that reward the completion of a health risk assessment are now the most common type of wellness program in the United States. However, legal and ethical concerns emerge when employers utilize incentives that raise questions about the voluntariness of such programs. At issue is that under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, employers cannot require health-related inquiries and exams. Methods To analyze the current interpretation of the ADA, I conducted research on both LexisNexis and federal agency websites. The resulting article evaluates the differences in the language of Congress's enabling legislation and the federal departments' regulations and how they may conflict with the ADA. It also reviews the federal government's authority to address both the legal conflict and ethical concerns related to nonvoluntary participatory programs. Findings Employers' practices and the federal departments' regulations conflict with the current interpretation of the ADA by permitting employers to penalize employees who do not complete a health risk assessment. The departments' regulations may be interpreted as conflicting with Congress's legislation, which mentions penalties only for health-contingent wellness programs. Furthermore, the regulatory protections for employees applicable to health-contingent wellness programs do not apply to participatory programs. Conclusions Either Congress or the federal agencies should address the conflict among employers' practices, the wellness regulations, and the ADA and also consider additional protections for employees. Employers can avoid ethical and legal complications by offering voluntary programs with positive incentives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the classification of obesity as a disability under the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), and it mentions how several ADA-related litigation decisions are incongruent with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit's ruling in the case Seff v. Broward County which deals with the voluntariness of the defendant's wellness initiative. The U.S. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the legal rights of disabled employees are examined.

The article discusses the disadvantages and benefits of employer sponsored employee wellness programs. A discussion of the U.S. government's role in employee wellness programs, initiated as a result of the U.S. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and an exception to the U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, is presented. The creation of a government sponsored wellness program which uses tax credits, and the legal aspects of wellness programs are discussed.

We argue for the existence of a state constitutional legal right to language. Our purpose here is to develop a legal framework for protecting the civil rights of the deaf child, with the ultimate goal of calling for legislation that requires all levels of government to fund programs for deaf children and their families to learn a fully accessible language: a sign language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To determine if disability is a significant factor in increasing the likelihood of experiencing stress regarding the ability to pay for housing and healthy food. PARTICIPANTS: 24.6% (n=16206) of 65,960 adults who responded to the social context optional module of 2009-2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System identified themselves as having a disability. Adults with disabilities reported that they experienced significantly more stress about having money to pay for housing and healthy food than adults without disabilities. METHODS: This research was a quantitative study using a publicly available dataset. A series of logistic regressions were performed to determine the extent that disability affected the likelihood of stress about having enough money for housing and healthy food.RESULTS: Employed persons with a disability are 1.6 times and 1.9 times as likely as persons without a disability to experience stress about not having enough money to pay for housing and healthy food, respectively. Persons not employed with a disability are 1.56 times and 1.83 times as likely to experience stress about not having enough money to pay for housing and healthy food, respectively. For persons with a disability, being female, in poor health, without a health plan and having a lower income were also significant. Education and employment were not significant predictors of experiencing stress regarding money for food or housing. CONCLUSIONS: Having a disability is more predictive of experiencing stress about having enough money for housing and healthy food than employment, though variables such as low income and having a health plan, dependent on employment are significant. Therefore, strategies and policy recommendations to reduce stress by increasing employment and income for persons with disabilities were presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reflects on the gains and challenges of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) 25 years after its signing on July 26, 1990 by President H. W. Bush with a focus on the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Topics include the disability data by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the 2013 National Healthcare Disparities Report by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the U.S. Access Board collaboration with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses articles in the issue on topics including employment of people with disabilities; vocational rehabilitation; and integrated community employment.

The author reflects on the guidance of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) about the nondiscriminatory wellness programs. Topics discussed were the incongruence between the U.S. Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), incentives for the wellness programs and the meeting of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission "Wellness Programs under Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Laws" on of May 8, 2013.