JFActivist

Cell Phone Can Read Documents for Blind

From the Associated Press (1/28):

Cell Phone Can Read Documents for Blind

BALTIMORE (AP) — Chris Danielsen fidgets with the cell phone, holding it over a $20 bill.

"Detecting orientation, processing U.S. currency image," the phone says in a flat monotone before Danielsen snaps a photo. A few seconds later, the phone says, "Twenty dollars."

Danielsen, a spokesman for the National Federation of the Blind, is holding the next generation of computerized aids for the blind and visually impaired.

The Nokia cell phone is loaded with software that turns text on photographed documents into speech...

...Read the rest of the article.

NCD Says NCLB and IDEA Having Positive Impact

From the National Council on Disability (NCD):

NEWS RELEASE

NCD #08–552
January 28, 2008
Contact: Mark S. Quigley
202-272-2004

National Council on Disability Says No Child Left Behind
and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Having Positive Impact

NEW ORLEANS, LA—The National Council on Disability (NCD) today released a report analyzing the progress of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that says students with disabilities are no longer ignored. To that end, NCLB and IDEA have had a significant, positive impact.

According to NCD Chairperson John R. Vaughn, “Thanks to NCLB, with its push for improved student outcomes, as well as the IDEA, educators across the United States are reexamining their practices to find ways to close the achievement gaps between groups of students. Students with disabilities are a focus of this attention as schools and states work hard to improve their academic outcomes. Policymakers are studying the ongoing implementation of both NCLB and IDEA to determine the most effective means for serving students with disabilities.”

NCD commissioned this study entitled The No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Progress Report, to assist policy leaders and stakeholders in assessing the impact of NCLB and IDEA on schools, including student outcomes produced as a result of changes mandated in the laws. This report provides a detailed analysis of such key questions as (a) How has student achievement status changed since the laws were (re)authorized? (b) What impact have the laws had on assessment systems, accountability systems, and systems of personnel development? and (c) Which barriers are impeding the achievement of students with disabilities, and how can those barriers be overcome?

“In our evaluation of NCLB and IDEA, students with disabilities appear to be doing better academically, and they also appear to be graduating with diplomas and certificates at higher rates than in prior years. Data suggests, however, that there is still cause for concern about the dropout levels of students with disabilities nationwide...

...Read the rest of the news release.

ADA Restoration Hearing in House Ed & Labor - Who Showed Up & What Went Down

The House Committee on Education & Labor's hearing on the ADA Restoration Act of 2007 (H.R. 3195) was well-attended by both Members of Congress as well as advocates.

Who Showed Up:

MEMBERS:

DEMOCRATS (who attended for some or part):

• Robert Andrews (NJ-1)
• Tim Bishop (NY-1)
• Joseph Courtney (CT-2)
• Phil Hare (IL-17)
• Mazie K. Hirono (HI-2)
• Ruben Hionjosa (TX-15)
• Rush Holt (NJ-12)
• Dale Kildee (MI-5)
• Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
• Dave Loebsack (IA-2)
• Carolyn McCarthy (NY-4)
• Donald Payne (NJ-10)
• John Sarbanes (MD-3)
• Joe Sestak (PA-7)
• Carol Shea-Porter (NH-1)
• Lynn Woolsey (CA-6)
• David Wu (OR-1)
• John Yarmuth (KY-3)

REPUBLICANS (who attended for some or part):

• Michael Castle (DE)
• David Davis (TN-1)
• Vernon Ehlers (MI-3)
• John Kline (MN-2)
• Randy Kuhl (NY-29)
• Ranking Member Howard McKeon (CA-25)
• Thomas Petri (WI-6)
• Todd Platts (PA-19)
• Tim Walberg (MI-7)
• Joe Wilson (SC-2)

WITNESSES:

Panel 1 - Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Chief Sponsor of H.R. 3195

Panel 2 
- Andrew Imparato, Pres. & CEO, American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD)
- Carey McClure, Plaintiff in ADA Lawsuit v. General Motors
- Robert L. Burgdorf, Professor of Law, University of the District of Columbia
- David K. Fram, Esq., Director, National Employment Law Institute

What Went Down:
The House Committee on Education & Labor's hearing on the ADA Restoration Act of 2007 (H.R. 3195) was well-attended by both Members of Congress as well as advocates, who filled the hearing room as well as an overflow room. 27 Members were in attendance.

Opening Remarks
Robert Andrews (D-NJ) chaired the committee in place of Chairman Miller (D-CA), who was delayed in a markup. Andrew began the hearing with opening remarks, referencing some of the most damaging court decisions as "tortured interpretations" of the ADA by the courts. 

Next, Ranking Member McKeon (R-CA) gave opening remarks, stating that while the goals of H.R. 3195 are well-intended, he holds concern that protections for those with the most significant disabilities may be "diluted" by the bill, with finite resources spread too thin.

First Panel
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer offered his testimony as the sole Member witness on the first panel. Referencing the ADA as the world's first "declaration of equality" for people with disabilities, Hoyer voiced his dismay with narrow court interpretations of the definition of disability that have weakened the protections the ADA offers as well as his strong support of H.R. 3195 to restore Congress's original intent.

Second Panel
Mr. Andrew Imparato, President and CEO of the American Association (AAPD) testified first on the second witness panel. Mr. Imparato stated that the courts' interpretation of the ADA has made it look more like a disability retirement law than a civil rights law. He referenced the need for the bill in the broader policy context of the discouraging employment rates of people with disabilities as well as other laws like the Social Security Act, which have the effect of penalizing people with disabilities who function well by removing their health care and income supports.

After Mr. Imparato, Carey McClure provided a real-life story of how the Supreme Court's narrow interpretations are affecting everyday people with disabilities in profoundly negative ways. Mr. McClure, who has a form of muscular dystrophy and is an electrician of over 20 years, was offered a job by GM in Texas after passing both a practical and written test. After being offered the job by GM, where his brother and father also worked, Mr. McClure quit his existing job, sold his house in Georgia, and moved his family to Texas. Following a doctor's exam in which his muscular dystrophy was "discovered," his offer of employment was revoked, despite the fact that he had successfully worked as an electrician for over 20 years and had passed both GM tests. When he brought his discrimination case, the courts told him he wasn't "disabled" for purposes of the ADA according to Supreme Court precedent.

Mr. David Fram testified next, acknowledging the need for a legislative fix of problematic court cases but offering opposition to H.R. 3195 and suggesting that far less than the bill would amply address the current problem. Mr. Fram stated that people with chipped teeth or alopecia (male pattern hair loss) would be free to bring discrimination claims or requests for accomodations under H.R. 3195. Mr. Fram questioned whether H.R. 3195 made for good policy, referencing his own male pattern baldness and asserting that an employer would be required under H.R. 3195 to give him hair treatments (his claims were addressed and countered in turn by both Members as well as fellow witnesses).

Mr. Robert Burgdorf was last to testify and began his oral remarks by refocusing attention on the thousands of people with disabilities who were told by Congress and the President in 1990 that they would be protected from discrimination by the ADA who have found, like Mr. McClure, that they are not. Mr. Burgdorf provided legal analysis of the bill and gave Members a chart that outlined what Congress had said in writing the original ADA in legislative history and what the courts have said that has directly contradicted each of those statements of intent.

Question and Answer
The question and answer period from Members was robust and at times lively. Chairman Andrews referenced New Jersey's state law, which has a far broader definition of "disability" than does the ADA and said to Mr. Fram that there was no spike in the percentage of claims brought in New Jersey or in other states with broader definitions once the definition was put into place and that claims of a flood of litigation are not founded.

Rep. Kildee commented that it seemed the courts had created a Catch-22 for people with disabilities regarding access to civil rights protections. Mr. Imparato agreed. Mr. Burgdorf added that it's sometimes worse than simply a Catch-22 scenario and asserted that many employers have an incorrect presumption that people are only disabled if their lives are "really messed up."

Rep. Loebsack was particularly interested in how the ADA Restoration Act would benefit returning veterans, referencing his two trips to visit troops in recent times.

Rep. Sarbanes stated that he was "fascinated by the courts' mischief" in how they've managed to create a 180-degree turn away from Congressional intent.

Rep. Payne referenced the lessons he and other Members of Congress had learned from the late Justin Dart, Jr., recalling the panic that naysayers stirred up prior to the passage of the original ADA. Drawing parallels, Payne stated that critics of the legislation were likely creating more hysteria about the fixes needed than was warranted. 

Rep. Woolsey took Mr. Fram to task. After referencing her 20 years of human resources experience, she stated that people taking advantage of situations were the exception and not the rule, and that the notion of accomodating baldness was a horrible illustration.

The hearing ended following legal clarification regarding the bill's burden of proof for showing that an individual is qualified for a job. Rep. Andrews stated that Members will have seven days to submit additional questions to the witnesses in writing.

MORE INFO:
- Read Mr. Imparato's testimony
- Read Carey McClure's testimony 
- Stay up to date on all breaking ADA Restoration news at the ADA Restoration Blog.
 

How Effective Are Inspections of Nursing Homes' Deficiencies?

From Steve Gold:

How Effective Are Inspections of Nursing Homes' Deficiencies - Nursing Facility Residents' 2007 Clinical Characteristics. 
Information Bullet #240 (1/08).

CMS' 2007 Nursing Home Data Compendium was recently released.  In the previous two Information Bulletins # 238 and 239, we looked at the distribution of people in these institutions by ADLs and cognitive impairments and by medical care being provided. In this Information Bulletin, we look at how well States do monitoring nursing home deficiencies. Click here and scroll down to Nursing Home Data Compendium 2007 - Part 1 and 2 to see how your States compares.

CMS has defined "Substandard Quality of Care" (SSQC) to include Resident Behavior and Facility Practices, Quality of Life, and Quality of Care. 

As can be seen in the two previous Information Bulletins, deficiencies reflect what nursing facilities do that injure residents, both affirmatively and what they do not do which also may result in injury to nursing facility residents.

CMS ranks deficiencies. ALL of the following deficiencies in this Information Bulletin either are, at least, widespread in the nursing facility and cause greater than minimal harm, OR their severity put residents either in immediate jeopardy or actual harm.

The following percentages reflect the mean number of citations in a state, not the number of nursing homes.

The deficiency data presented here urgently demand the need for much stronger enforcement of nursing home standards. This data raises questions regarding why States are not, based on these and other on-going deficiencies, imposing severe penalties on violators.  Such penalties could include monetary fines, shut-down, refuse to pay Medical Assistance for residents in these nursing facilities.  What has your State done?

It is unconscionable that States permit nursing facilities to have repeated health deficiency citations and not either close them down or take other severe enforcement measures. It is beyond the pale that States permit nursing facilities to put people either in immediate jeopardy or actual harm. [See the news story at the end of this Information Bulletin.] Advocates should be livid that Older Americans and people with disabilities are being affirmatively harmed by these institutions.

Nursing Facility Deficiencies:
   
A.  Only 8.2% of the States' nursing home surveys had ZERO health deficiencies' citations. (Table 4.5.(e)).

The following states, in descending order, had the most nursing facility health deficiencies cited.

NH, 27.8%,
OR, 25.2%,
MA, 18.3%,
WI, 16%,
OH, 14.5%,
IA, 13.2%,
VA, 12.9%,
IL, 12.7%.

B.  18.2% of all States' nursing facilities had surveys resulting in a health deficiency of "actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents."
(Table 4.8.(e)).

The following states, in descending order, had the most health deficiency citations of "actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents." All had more than, or nearly, twice the national average.

CT, 43.3%,
CO, 43.0%,
DE, 38.6%,
ID, 35.7%,
IN, 33.7%,
KA, 32.9%.

We are still waiting to hear why nursing facilities that put residents in "actual harm or immediate jeopardy" are not investigated for criminal wrongdoing.

Advocates might want to contact your local U.S. Attorney offices and explore why they are not investigating actual abuses.  These nursing facilities are using federal funds to put residents in "actual harm or immediate jeopardy."

C.  9.8% of all States' nursing facilities were cited for a deficiency for using restraints on residents. (Table 4.17(e)).

The following states, in descending order, had the most citations for use of restraints.  All had more than, or nearly, twice the national average.

WY, 23.5%,
MN, 20.6%,
HI, 20%,
CA, 18.7%,
NV, 17.8%,
AK, 17.1%,
CN, 16.9%. 

Why are States' MA officials reimbursing nursing facilities that receive such deficiencies?  Why are they using Medicaid's federal and state funds to pay for nursing facilities using restraints?

D.  Nearly 18.3% of all states' nursing facilities had surveys resulting in a citation for failure to treat or prevent residents'
pressure ulcers.  (Table 4.18.(e)).  What follows is the percent of all nursing facilities by state that were cited for "Failure to Treat or Prevent Pressure Ulcers." As in the previous year, there is a very wide spread among the States.

Let's remember, these are "Failures to Treat or Prevent" pressure sores! 
Such failures can result in death of persons with disabilities. These deficiencies aren't the result of accidents or forgetfulness.  Obviously, behind these percentages are large number of nursing residents (all of whom are Older Americans and/or younger persons with disabilities), who are being unnecessarily injured and harmed, and many may not recover.
       
Alabama           18.7%   
Alaska             O%   
Arizona           12.8%   
Arkansas          28.6%
California        19.1%
Colorado          21.7%
Connecticut       32.7 %
Delaware          40.9%
D. C.             27.3%
Florida            9.5%
Georgia           19.3%
Hawaii             4.0%                  
Idaho             40.0%
Illinois          21.1% 
Indiana           23.1%    
Iowa              10.6%
Kansas            44.5%
Kentucky           6.6%
Louisiana         12.9%
Maine             30.4%
Maryland           8.5%               
Massachus          9.3%      
Michigan          21.6%
Minnesota         71.1%
Mississippi        4.1%
Missouri          24.8%
Montana            5.4%   
Nebraska          15.2% 
Nevada            17.8%
New Hamp          11.4%
New Jersey        15.4%
New Mexico        10.1%          
New York          18.3%
North Carolina     6.6%
North Dakota      19.0%
Ohio              17.9%   
Oklahoma          14.5%
Oregon            17.0%
Pennsylvania      12.7%
Rhode Island       9.6%
South Carolina    21.9%   
South Dakota      10.4%
Tennessee          9.1%
Texas             15.9%
Utah               2.1%
Vermont           23.1%   
Virginia          17.9%               
Washington        19.8%       
West Virginia      8.4%
Wisconsin         12.5% 
Wyoming           26.5%
National          18.3%

Following is a news story we just received.

Man Found With Maggots In Eye Dies. Cause Of Death Not Known

DELTONA, Fla. -- "A Volusia County nursing home resident who was found with maggots in one of his eyes, an infected breathing tube, a partially inserted catheter and bed sores has died, according to his family.

Anthony Digiannurio, of Deltona, was 82 years old when he was transported in November from the University Center West nursing home to Florida Hospital DeLand, where staff members discovered the ailments.

It is not known if the cause of death was related to the aforementioned conditions.

According to a DeLand police report released in November, a representative from University Center West said that the man had constant care from multiple hospice workers and two certified nursingaides at the nursing home.

Officials from the state Department of Children and Families were investigating the incident.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has found 19 deficiencies at the facility since June 2006."

Hmm.  Is this enough to push the Older American and disability advocates into action?

    ~Steve Gold, The Disability Odyssey continues

Superbowl Pepsi Ad to Feature Deafness

From the USA Today (Associated Press):

Pepsi hopes silence is golden with Super Bowl ad
By Vinnee Tong, AP Business Writer

NEW YORK - Amid the wall-to-wall sound during next Sunday's Super Bowl, one commercial from PepsiCo could send some viewers grabbing for their remotes to check whether they'd accidentally hit the mute button.

The pre-game advertisement features a joke that originates from the deaf community and will play out on screen over 60 seconds of total silence, a veritable eternity when it comes to the noisiness of Super Bowl ads...

...Read more.

View the captioned ad.

Join ADAPT Coalition Letter to Oppose Harmful CMS Case Management Rules

ACTION ALERT!

Interim Final Rules issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will reduce federal case management reimbursement targeted for transitioning people from institutional settings to the community.  Under the Interim Final Rules, CMS reduces the funding for individuals "transitioning to a community setting" from the current 180 days to only 60 days if the individual has been institutionalized for six months or more.  CMS will only allow payment for 14 days if the individual has been institutionalized for less than six months.  This change undercuts efforts at the state level to comply with the Olmstead decision, implement the Money Follows the Person Demonstration programs and support people transitioning into the community from institutional placement. 

We must let CMS know that we oppose this change. 

National ADAPT is organizing a coalition response to show the widespread opposition for this change.  If you would like to add your organization’s name to this letter, email Linda Taylor at LTaylor@rochestercdr.org and we will add you.  The deadline to respond to CMS is February 4th, so please respond to Linda before 5 pm EST on February 1st.


COALITION LETTER TO CMS OPPOSING CASE MANAGEMENT CHANGES


January 22, 2008
Dennis Smith, Director of the Center for Medicaid and State Operations
Department of Health and Human Services
Attention CMS-2237-IFC
P.O. Box 8016
Baltimore, MD 21244-8016

Re: Interim Final Rule on Case Management Services

Dear Mr. Smith:

The undersigned organizations are deeply concerned about and oppose Interim Final Rules issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) which will reduce federal case management reimbursement targeted for assistance transitioning individuals from an institutional setting to the community.  Under the Interim Final Rules, CMS would reduce the funding for such an individual from the current 180 days to only 60 days if the individual has been institutionalized for six months or more.  CMS would only allow payment for 14 days if the individual has been institutionalized for less than six months.

CMS staff stated that the rationale for this change, in part, is that payment for transition case management is a duplication of payment to the institution which is expected to provide “discharge planning”.  We strongly disagree with this assertion.  Transition into the community requires a great deal of work to coordinate the services and supports individuals need to be successful.   Based on the collective experience of advocates and service providers in our coalition, we know that institution-based staff is unfamiliar with the complex array of community-based housing options, services, and supports that must be navigated to transition into community living.  This work is particularly difficult and time-consuming because the entire plan must be in place at the same time.   It is impossible to effectively put one component of a plan in place and then work on another piece. 

CMS originally changed these case management rules and increased the allowable payment to address concerns that people needed additional support beyond institutional discharge planning to transition to community living.  This change was made to help states comply with the Olmstead decision.  Reversing this position simply strengthens the institutional bias and undercuts state transition efforts.  The timing on this change is particularly devastating because states are beginning to implement their Money Follows the Person Demonstration programs.  Advocates have been working with the states to use the expanded case management funding to support the work needed to make community living a viable alternative.  More importantly, this funding stream would help transition people into the community long after the demonstration program was over.

We are also concerned that the payment system creates a huge disincentive for smaller non-profit organizations to do this work.  Payment is made only after the individual has transitioned to the community.  Smaller non-profit organizations, which have been the leaders in transitioning people out of nursing facilities, often do not have sufficient cash flow to support the work while they wait months for payment.  We urge CMS to work with advocates to develop an approach which maintains accountability for the work but also addresses this concern.

Again, we urge you to retract these devastating changes.

Sincerely,

Accessibility Advance! Apple TV and iTunes Have Captioning Playback

According to Mike Shebanek, Apple's Senior Product Manager of Worldwide Product Marketing, Apple now includes closed captioning playback in Apple's QuickTime software, iTunes, and in the latest software for the iPod, and iPhone. Also, at Macworld 2008, the company show held in San Francisco recently, Apple announced a new AppleTV that also supports closed captioned playback. The software for the new AppleTV will also be available to existing AppleTV owners as a software update over the
Internet.  This is a big step forward for persons who rely on captioning.

AAPD lauds all companies who voluntarily make their products andservices more accessible to persons with disabilities. Captioning is used by millions of Americans with hearing and other disabilities. AAPD is a steering committee member of the Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology (COAT), the nation's largest disability coalition working to ensure new mainstream technologies are accessible.

For more information on Apple accessibility send email to: accessibility@apple.com

COAT information at: http://www.coataccess.org

An Autistic Dream

Guest Column

By Sara Gardner

Almost forty-five years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream that one day African Americans would enjoy equality, and today, Barack Obama is running for President. I believe Dr. King would be proud. Because of his dream, and the incredible drawing-together of blacks and whites alike to gain civil liberties for minorities, the United States of America is a very different place today than it was in 1963.

I, too, have a dream. A dream about acceptance and equality. A dream that one day autistics will not have to hide our true selves in fear and shame. A dream that one day parents will proudly say "my child is autistic" and look forward to understanding and support, instead of denial and exclusion. A dream that a man will say to his colleague, "I am autistic" and begin a dialog of communication and kindness, instead of back-stabbing and rumor.

I have a dream that research efforts will be spent on learning ways to communicate with autistics, rather than "cure" them. I have a dream that families will stop seeing their autistic children as typical children with a disabling flaw and begin to see them as they are: fundamentally different – neurologically different – and thus these families will start to see all the positive differences as well as the more difficult-to-understand ones.

I have a dream that people will understand that the autism can no more be removed from an autistic than "neurotypicalness" can be removed from a neurotypical person. Our brains are wired differently. Change our brains and you change who we are. I have a dream that one day, autistics will be judged – not by the size of their amygdala - but by the content of their character.

But, unless autistics are willing to come out and say "I am autistic" this dream will never become reality. Unless parents are willing to tell their children "you are autistic" this dream will die. Unless people are willing to stand up, and insist that autistics have basic human rights to freedom of expression – expression that just might include rocking and flapping and twirling around – then autistics will forever remain in the shadows.

Families will continue to hide autism from their children and acquaintances. Adults will continue to hide their autism from their co-workers and friends. All without ever realizing that their condition isn't really "hidden". All without realizing that the "typical" people know intrinsically that there is something very different about them. And that they are being labeled whether they choose the label or not.

So, I say – choose the label of Autism. Choose truth. Choose reality. Autism is not a bad word. It's a neurological difference. Autistics have made, and continue to make, incredible contributions to our society. We need autistics. And autistics need to be accepted and respected. Dream along with me, that one day, "autistic" will be just another word, and not a pejorative. That one day on a playground, a child will tell his companion, "I'm autistic" and the other child will say "Cool! Come on, race you to the swings."

Sarah is a member of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network.

Medical Care in Nursing Homes?

From Steve Gold:

Medical Care in Nursing Facilities?- Nursing Residents' 2007 Clinical Characteristics.
Information Bulletin #239 (1/08)

CMS' 2007 Nursing Home Data Compendium was recently released.  In the previous Information Bulletin #238, we looked at the distribution of people in these institutions by Activity of Daily Living and Cognitive Impairments. In this Information Bulletin, we will break down some of the findings. Review how your State measures up by clicking here and scrolling down to Nursing Home Data Compendium 2007- Parts 1 & 2 .

Are People Receiving Medical Care in Nursing Facilities?
   
Many of the following are life endangering conditions, and many of them are actually caused by improper medical care and treatment in the nursing facilities.

They all demonstrate that people are at significant risk to their health and safety when they are in a nursing facility.

A.  Pressure Ulcers

CMS counted these only if the pressure sore was at stage 2 or greater.

a.  Nationally, half of ALL nursing facilities had more than 7.9% of its residents with pressure ulcers at stage 2 or greater. (Table 3.7).

b. The following States, in descending order, had the highest percentages of nursing facilities whose residents who had these pressure ulcers:

DC
New Jersey
Maryland
California
Virginia
Nevada
New York   
S. Carolina

B.  Use of Physical Restraints

CMS writes that it "conservatively considered only" people whom the nursing homes reported were in a trunk restraint, limb restraint, or some sort of restraining chair and in such restraint at least once in the 7 days prior to the assessment.  CMS noted that it did not report use of bed rails.

a.  Nationally, half of ALL nursing facilities had more than 3 % of its residents who were in these physical restraints.  (Table 3.11)

b. The following States, in descending order, had the highest percentages of nursing facilities whose residents were in physical restraint, and all of these States were at least twice the national average:
   
Arkansas
Louisiana
Oklahoma
California
Mississippi
North Carolina

C.  Weight Loss

CMS identified people who had a weight loss of more than 5 percent in the 30 days prior to the assessment or more than 10% weight loss in last 180 days.  CMS excluded residents with end-stage disease or receiving hospice care.

a.  Nationally, half of ALL nursing facilities had more than 8.0% of its residents who had such weight loss.  (Table 3.17).

b. The following States, in descending order, had the highest percentages of nursing facilities whose residents who had such weight loss:

Wyoming
Vermont
Washington
Oregon
Kentucky

D.  Severe Bladder or Bowel Incontinence

CMS identified and counted only persons who were incontinent of bladder or of bowel on almost all occasions.  This is a measure of severe incontinence.

a.  Nationally, half of ALL nursing facilities had 32.9% of its residents who had severe bladder or bowel incontinence. (Table 3.19).

b. The following States, in descending order, had the highest percentages of nursing facilities whose residents who had severe bladder or bowel incontinence on almost all occasions:

South Carolina
Hawaii
DC
California
Georgia
North Carolina   
Virginia
Mississippi
       
What are Older American and Disability Advocates doing to correct these four situations?  Even if your State was not listed, go to the above CMS website and find out how your State compares.

Each of the above - pressure sores, physical restraints, weight loss, and severe bladder or bowel incontinence - is very dangerous!

Pressure sores, weight loss, and the sequelae of incontinence are all treatable conditions that if not properly treated can be life threatening.

Older American and disability advocates should be meeting with and pressuring your State Medicaid officials and your State Health Departments for letting these conditions go on, and to find out why they are occurring in such numbers and in many cases year after year.

~Steve Gold, The Disability Odyssey continues

Federal Judge Approves NY Voting Machine Plan

Congratuations to all the advocates in New York for their hard work in insisting that New York state conform to HAVA!

From Newsday (1/16):

Federal judge approves NY voting machine plan
By VALERIE BAUMAN

ALBANY, N.Y.

A federal judge has approved New York's latest plan for bringing the state into compliance with federal voting laws.

New York is years behind deadlines to comply with the Help America Vote Act, which was enacted after the contested 2000 presidential elections to ensure better accuracy and access for the disabled.

U.S. District Judge Gary Sharpe ordered the state Board of Elections on Wednesday to follow through with the plans it gave him to meet the requirements of the law.

If the state acts on the agreed timeline, voting machines accessible to the disabled will be available in every polling place around the state by this fall's federal elections. The state would then follow up by replacing all pull-lever machines by the fall 2009 state elections...

...Read the rest of the article.

*********************************
READ MORE:

• Read the decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of NY.

Summary of the Court Order:

• The following article is a summary of the Court Order (D.O.J. vs. N.Y.):

The Court has ordered the New York State to provide voting systems accessible to voters with disabilities at each poll site by September 2008 and to replace lever voting machines by September 2009 in accordance with the plan submitted by the NYS Board of Elections on January 4, 2008.

The Court finds:

1) It agrees with the DOJ that New York State has not complied with Section 301 of HAVA.

2) HAVA noncompliance is not an option, Federal law trumps State law.

3) Given NY’s delays it is not possible to meet HAVA requirements for the February 2008 primary, the September 2008 primary, or the November 2008 election.

4) Based on arguments by the parties and consideration of “relevant submissions” of Friend of the Court briefs “that partial compliance in the form of Ballot Marking Devices and/or voting systems accessible to persons with disabilities available for use in every polling place in the State of New York during the fall 2008 federal primary and general elections is possible and must be accomplished.”

5) Full compliance with HAVA’s voting system requirements, and the replacement of all lever voting machines in the State of New York must be accomplished as soon as possible but in no event later than in time for use during the fall 2009 State primary and general elections.

The Court Orders:

* The US DOJ motion to Enforce is Granted.

* The States plan for deployment of ballot marking devices of in every polling place in NY in 2008 and of the State’s plan for lever machine replacement for 2009 as set forth in the States filing of January 4, 2008 shall be implemented.

* The State must file a weekly progress report to the Court

* The State must notify the Court of any deviation from the schedule, “no matter how minimal” from the schedule submitted by the State, and the reasons for the deviations.