![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kestrellI'm currently researching this subject, and came across a couple of recent reports on why PWD have difficulty obtaining the tech they need:
According to a 2017 report by the National Academies of Sciences sponsored by the Social Security Administration http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=24740
"There is often a mismatch between products covered by Medicare and those that would best meet the needs of the users. The report goes on to state that the provision of assistive devices often depends more on reimbursement policy than on patient need. In some cases, the products and devices deemed medically necessary, and thus covered by Medicare and other insurers, are not those that would best meet the needs of users in terms of enhancing their participation in life roles."
When learning about an individual's assistive technology needs, the first question should be whether that person has easy access to a phone or equivalent communication device. In February 2019, the FCC released a report on the accessibility of smart phones and non-smart phones for people with disabilities.
http://www.wirelessrerc.gatech.edu/wireless-rerc-publishes-mobile-phone-accessibility-review
While smartphones offered through traditional wireless plans are including an increasing number of accessibility features, phones provided to low-income people through the Federally-subsidized Lifeline program offer far fewer accessibility options. Since PWD are more likely to be low-income, they are likely to be a significant percentage of those relying on the Lifeline program. According to the study, only 17% of the Lifeline phones provide access to Wireless Emergency Alert Notifications, and only 26% of the Lifeline phone include text-to-speech, an accessibility tool which allows visually impaired people to hear what appears on the phone's screen. In addition, accessibility features for people who are deaf or hard of hearing are even more scarce: 58% of Lifeline phones lack the video calling features necessary for ASL users, and most phones lack hearing aid compatibility.
Accessibility to communications technology is covered under the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA).
According to a 2017 report by the National Academies of Sciences sponsored by the Social Security Administration http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=24740
"There is often a mismatch between products covered by Medicare and those that would best meet the needs of the users. The report goes on to state that the provision of assistive devices often depends more on reimbursement policy than on patient need. In some cases, the products and devices deemed medically necessary, and thus covered by Medicare and other insurers, are not those that would best meet the needs of users in terms of enhancing their participation in life roles."
When learning about an individual's assistive technology needs, the first question should be whether that person has easy access to a phone or equivalent communication device. In February 2019, the FCC released a report on the accessibility of smart phones and non-smart phones for people with disabilities.
http://www.wirelessrerc.gatech.edu/wireless-rerc-publishes-mobile-phone-accessibility-review
While smartphones offered through traditional wireless plans are including an increasing number of accessibility features, phones provided to low-income people through the Federally-subsidized Lifeline program offer far fewer accessibility options. Since PWD are more likely to be low-income, they are likely to be a significant percentage of those relying on the Lifeline program. According to the study, only 17% of the Lifeline phones provide access to Wireless Emergency Alert Notifications, and only 26% of the Lifeline phone include text-to-speech, an accessibility tool which allows visually impaired people to hear what appears on the phone's screen. In addition, accessibility features for people who are deaf or hard of hearing are even more scarce: 58% of Lifeline phones lack the video calling features necessary for ASL users, and most phones lack hearing aid compatibility.
Accessibility to communications technology is covered under the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA).
no subject
Date: 2019-07-09 02:26 am (UTC)The thing about Lifeline is that it's not at all conceived of as a service for the disabled, it's conceptualized as a service for the poor. In reality, of course, the vast majority of disabled people are poor, and dependent on services for the poor, but, nevertheless, services for the poor are imagined and implemented with an unconscious and unconsidered assumption of who a "normal" user of such services is, and it's a "normal" person, i.e. a white, middle-class, college educated person who is not disabled and distinguished from "normal" only by being - randomly, and in a vacuum - poor.
So Lifeline largely provides sucky phones. The premise behind Lifeline is as the name suggests: providing poor people with just enough phone service to call an ambulance or maybe make a doctor's appointment or call the number in a help-wanted ad so they can get a job you bum and afford real phones. Americans hate poor people – meaning those they think of as "poor people", which is people who are only poor, not disabled, because the disabled are worthy poor people deserving of help and resources, unlike normal poor people – Americans hate poor people and give to them only grudgingly, and only insofar as what is given is of the poorest possible quality. Farbeit for poor people to be given good phones. Beggars can't be chosers, and shouldn't look gift phones in the mouth, don't you know.
Also, one of the two companies servicing the Lifeline phone program back when I looked into this (most recently around 2015) was (is?) Tracfone. I do busines with Tracfone, reluctantly, because it provides certain low-end cheap services nobody else does. This, I surmise, is why they got the (or at least a) contract with the federal government to provide Lifeline phones: I bet it was the lowest bidder. And further, I'm guessing from their perspective that Lifeline is a convenient way for them to dump old inventory at a slight profit, instead of paying to send it to landfills.
An awful lot of the crummy services disabled people are stuck with ensue from them being poor and using services intended for the presumed-not-disabled-poor and running smack dab into all the discrimination against the poor, that assumes the poor are sullen, irresponsible, willful wayward children who both deserve to be pushed and benefit by it.
Honestly, so long as Americans will hate poor people - which is presumably forever - disabled Americans will get screwed when they use services for the general poor. The best strategy here maybe should be for agitating for an elaboration of the Lifeline program, where the disabled are entitled to a better class of phone to accommodate their disabilities.