from the Maryland Disability Law Center
Leslie Seid-Margolis
Leslie Seid-Margolis of the Maryland Disability Law Center is under
contract to MDTAP for provision of protection and advocacy services
regarding timely acquisition of AT. Here she answers all your AT questions.
What is the role that private insurance plays in the provision of assistive technology services and assistive technology devices?
Private insurance is one source of funding for assistive technology devices. Often, devices may be coverable through a policy's durable medical equipment or prosthetics provisions. Assistive technology services are not usually (if ever) defined in a private insurance policy, but services such as occupational, physical and speech therapy often are defined and covered; probably it is these therapists who are most often providing assistive technology service:.
Private insurance policies vary significantly from company to company and from policy to policy, even within the same company. persons with a need for assistive technology who are able to choose their insurance coverage should carefully examine each policy and determine answers to the following questions:
a) Does the policy cover occupational physical, and speech therapies? How much coverage? What requirements must be met for coverage?
b) Are the definitions of "durable medical equipment and "prosthetic device" broad or narrow (i.e., do the definitions contain language such as "including" or "such as" or does the definition limit coverage to a specified list of items?)? Are there any restrictions regarding replacement of devices?
c) What are the mechanisms for appealing a decision to deny coverage? Of course, these are only a few of the questions people should ask when considering an insurance policy. It is also important to remember that if a person obtains an assistive technology device through private insurance, the device belongs to that person.
What is the mechanism for insuring that my child obtains the recommended assistive technology in a timely manner? Does the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) mandate a provision for rental or back-up devices while awaiting delivery of recommended devices? Is there any policy for provision of back-up devices if my child's device should break down?
Maryland law requires that assessments be completed within 45 calendar days of the day they are recommended. Therefore, an assistive technology assessment must be completed within 45 calendar days. If assistive technology services or devices are included on a student's IEP, then the timeline for provision is the same as for any other IEP service--that is, according to current stat. regulations, an IEP must be implemented no later than 30 days from the date of its development.
The IDEA does not mandate the provision of rental or back-up devices while awaiting delivery or repair of a student's device. It is important therefore, for families to negotiate such. a provision in the student's IEP. In some cases, it may be possible to use a lower tech device or system in the interim; if so, the device or system should be specified on the IEP. In other cases, a replacement device will be the only appropriate alternative; the IEP should specify this as well. The key is what is iate given the student' needs and the amount of time likely to pass before the student gets his or her device.
In instances in which the assistive technology portion of a student's IEP is not implemented within the required timelines, it may be possible to obtain compensatory, or make-up services.
What if I don't feel that the assistive technology provider has the specialized assistive technology skills and experience necessary to provide services to my child? What if I don't believe the evaluation services are complete or appropriate? Am I allowed to request and/or schedule a private evaluation?
Parents always have the right to request an independent evaluation of their child if they disagree with an evaluation performed by the school system. Parents can ask that the independent evaluation be performed at public expense; the school system must either pay for the independent evaluation or ask for a hearing to justify the appropriateness of its own evaluation. Parents also have the right to obtain an independent evaluation at private expense; the ARD committee must consider, but is not required to adopt the results of a private independent evaluation. Parents are always free to pursue due process if they disagree with a school system's decision.
If parents believe that the assistive technology services (or any other IEP services) being provided to their child are inappropriate, the parents should address their concerns through the ARD process or, if necessary, mediation or due process. Training for staff in the use of assistive technology is an important component of an appropriate education for a student who relies on such technology in school.
What mechanism is in place to ensure that an assistive technology team is available in my child's school system?
currently, all jurisdictions except for Kent and Somerset counties, have an assistive technology specialist or team. There is no requirement or mechanism in place to ensure that every jurisdiction have an assistive technology team, but that does not release school systems from the obligation to conduct assistive technology evaluations and provide assistive technology services and devices. Counties without assistive technology specialists need to ensure that arrangements are in place to provide necessary assessments and services to students. Interested persons could contact the board of education and/or superintendent for the county school system to explain and advocate the need for an assistive technology specialist or team.
How does IDEA provide for extended rental and trial phases with a specific, individual assistive technology device?
The IDEA does not discuss trial periods with assistive technology devices. This issue is best addressed through the ARD process. An IEP could reflect the trial use of a device, with the ARD committee to reconvene after a certain period of time to address the appropriateness of the device and make alternative recommendations if necessary. Or, the IEP could reflect that several different devices will be tried over a specific period of time, with the ARD to reconvene at the end of that period. While there are different ways of addressing this issue, it is very important that the trial period be defined and that a meeting occur at the end of the trial period to discuss the appropriateness of the device and the next steps to be taken. The ARD committee should also address smooth transition to a different device if such is necessary; i.e., if the trial with one device is unsuccessful and a different device might be more appropriate, the second device should be rented or ordered early enough so the student will not be without a device at the end of the trial period. Likewise, if the device is appropriate and the school system decides to order one for the student, the trial device should remain with the student until the new one arrives and is ready for the student to use.
