Disability civil rights laws require equitable treatment of the approximately sixty-one million Americans with disability. However, federal reports and numerous research studies indicate that this diverse and growing population often experiences health care disparities. To examine one possible contributing factor, we interviewed practicing physicians to explore their knowledge of their obligations to accommodate patients with disability under federal civil rights law. Interviewees reported having had little formal training about, and demonstrated superficial or incorrect understanding of, their obligations in three potentially problematic areas: deciding which accommodations their practices should implement, refusing patients with disability, and holding patients accountable for costs of accommodations. The fact that practicing physicians might not fully understand their legal responsibilities when caring for people with disability may contribute to persisting inequity in their care, and it suggests that further education in the Americans with Disabilities Act and other disability civil rights laws may be warranted.Healthy People 2010-the 2000 decennial federal review of national public health priorities 1 -introduced people with disability as a subpopulation whose members experienced systematic inequities in their health care. Subsequent federal reports and growing numbers of academic research studies have confirmed frequent disparities in care for people with disability. [2][3][4][5] The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 protects the civil rights of people with disability, a population estimated at roughly fifty-seven million Americans as of 2010. 6 The number of Americans with disability has grown to an estimated sixty-one

No abstract

Background: Women with intellectual disability experience disparities in sexual and reproductive health care services. Methods: To explore perceptions of caring for persons with disability, including individuals with intellectual disability, we conducted open-ended individual interviews with 20 practising physicians and three video-based focus group interviews with an additional 22 practising physicians, which reached data saturation. Interviews were transcribed verbatim. We used conventional content analysis methods to analyse transcripts. Result: Physicians indicated that intellectual disability can pose challenges to providing sexual and reproductive health care. Observations coalesced around four themes: (1) communication; (2) routine preventive care; (3) contraception and sterilisation; and (4) conception and parenthood. Observations raised concerns about equity of access to reproductive care for women with intellectual disability. Conclusions: In our sample of physicians, we found attitudes that might compromise reproductive care for women with intellectual disability, suggesting that gaps remain in ensuring reproductive rights of women with intellectual disability.

No abstract

Under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has inactivated or rescinded numerous rules and guidelines issued by prior administrations, sometimes attracting considerable public attention in the process. Little noticed, however, was a decision by the DOJ on December 26, 2017, to formally withdraw four Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking related to Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including rulemaking that addressed making medical diagnostic equipment accessible to people with disability. For now, this step halts efforts on a national level to ensure accessibility of such equipment, which includes exam tables, weight scales, mammography equipment, and other diagnostic imaging technologies. It also forestalls explicit guidance for providers on what constitutes accessible medical diagnostic equipment and perpetuates existing confusion about this issue at many health care facilities. As we approach 30 years since the passage of the ADA in 1990, the absence of a clear federal rule in this area raises questions about how to improve access to medical diagnostic equipment for millions of Americans with disability, many of whom face considerable difficulty getting care because of inaccessible equipment in public and private health care settings.