You are currently browsing the archives for the Legislation Issues category.
Recommended Site
Archive for the 'Legislation Issues' Category
The FHAA prohibits a wide array of activities that discriminate against persons with disabilities and families with children in the sale or rental of housing. The following specifically outlines illegal actions:
• Refusal to sell or rent a dwelling unit when a bona fide offer has been made, where the refusal is based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin.
• Imposing different terms and conditions or treating people differently with the provision of service because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin.
• Discouraging an individual from living in a community or neighborhood, if the restriction is based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin. This activity is frequently referred to as “steering.”
• Advertising, posting notices or making statements in such a way as to deny access to an individual if that denial is based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin.
• Misrepresenting the availability of a dwelling because of the applicant’s race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin.
• Blockbusting by encouraging the sale or rental of a dwelling by implying that people of a certain race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or origin are entering the community in large numbers.
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) is the most comprehensive law ever passed to protect the civil rights of individuals with disabilities. The ADA will enable people with disabilities to participate more fully in their communities, compete more effectively for jobs, travel more easily in their hometowns and across the nation, and gain more complete access to the goods and services that most Americans take for granted. United Spinal Association is proud to have played a role in the passage of this landmark law. While many Americans have heard about the ADA, few know what this important law requires. The following are answers to some commonly asked questions about the ADA.
Whom does the ADA protect?
Some 54 million Americans have a disability covered by the ADA. While the ADA does not offer a laundry list of disabilities, some well-established examples covered by the law include (to name only a few) spinal cord injury, blindness, hearing impairment, epilepsy, HIV infection and AIDS, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, emphysema, cancer, dyslexia, organic brain disorder, cognitive impairment, and depression. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that disabilities should be considered in their corrected states. Conditions such as low vision, for example, if correctable, might not be covered by the ADA.
What conditions are not protected by the ADA?
The ADA does not cover temporary, nonchronic impairments with no lasting impact, such as sprains, simple fractures, colds, and influenza; homosexuality and bisexuality, which are not impairments; or sexual and behavioral disorders, including transvestism, transsexualism, compulsive gambling, klepto-mania, and pyromania. The ADA also does not protect individuals who are currently abusing controlled substances.
Whom does the ADA affect?
The ADA affects any business or institution, public or private, that employs 15 or more people or offers goods or services to the public. That means virtually every public or private entity in the US must make some accommodations for the people with disabilities whom they serve or employ.
Who is not affected by the ADA?
Executive agencies of the U.S. government are exempt from the provisions of the ADA but are covered by similar regulations promulgated by other disability nondiscrimination laws. Also not covered are corporations fully owned by the U.S. government, Indian tribes, and bona fide private clubs that are exempt from taxation under the Internal Revenue Code. Private clubs and religious organizations are exempt from the Title III (public accommodations) provisions.
The source of this information is the United Spinal Association, a not-for-profit organization. All of their services, from benefits counseling to wheelchair sports are made possible through donations.
CMS to Face Legal Threat if Congress Cancels DMEPOS Contracts
The federal government could face a flurry of lawsuits from angry medical equipment suppliers if lawmakers get their way and cancel hundreds of contracts that took effect July 1.
As of July 1, only those suppliers in 10 metropolitan areas that won contracts through a bidding process completed earlier this year are permitted to sell 10 types of medical equipment, such as diabetes test strips, walkers and oxygen tanks, to Medicare beneficiaries.
But despite the fact that those suppliers are already abiding by the terms of their winning bids and have spent thousands of dollars to prepare for the starting date, key lawmakers remain committed to retroactively terminating their contracts, making changes to the program and opening it up for a fresh round of bids to take effect in 2010.
If the legislation is enacted, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will face an enormous administrative headache, as well as the threat of legal action from suppliers who feel that they played by the rules and deserve the spoils.
The language to delay the program, authored by Rep. Stark (D-CA), became part of a larger Medicare bill that overwhelmingly passed the House, and just passed the Senate.
Stark has expressed particular sympathy to the industry’s complaints that CMS mishandled the implementation of the bidding program by, for example, providing inadequate guidance to bidders about how to file the appropriate paperwork.
CMS has been stalwart in its defense of the program, pointing out that the bid prices are an average 26 percent lower than what the government currently pays and emphasizing that triumphant bidders had to win accreditation that had never before been required to participate in Medicare.
In exchange for agreeing to take up their cause, Stark extracted a heavy price from the medical equipment industry. In order to cover the $3.1 billion, five-year cost, the industry accepted a 9.5 percent cut off their current fees in those 10 geographic areas.
(The Hill, July 8, 2008)