Here's a sample of leaving Comments on proposed rules. These are Comments I left on one of the Civil Rights Division's proposed rules on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in the use of Medical Diagnostic Equipment. Once I realized perfection is not required, I realized how easy it is to leave Comments on proposed rules. I hope you have the same experience including the realization that perfection is not required!
COMMENTS ON "NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY: ACCESSIBILITY OF MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES":
Re: RIN 1190-AA78.
To the Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice:
This Comment will address your proposed addition in a new Subpart I of a new § 35.213, Qualified staff.
As written this proposed rule is more aspirational than mandatory. It would be a good starting point perhaps when combined with more specific rules on staffing.
These do not have to be precise or expressed in ratios (such as 1:1, God forbid) that would overwhelm the presumed expertise of the State and local entities using Medical Diagnostic Equipment. It is probably wiser, at least at first and for now, to leave precise staffing ratios to them. However, it is equally possible and wiser to provide more than aspirational goals.
Are not Nursing Homes subject to specific staffing ratios? My understanding is that they are. Propose a rule or rules that refer to such rules/regulations adopted in similar settings regulated by other agencies and Departments, without expressly incorporating by reference the separate standards that have been adopted for other entities and attempting to apply them directly to the State and local entities you address.
Further, if you need assistance in formulating such rules about staffing, by all means get it. Consult with private organizations that deal with all sorts of populations that encounter MDE both from the receiving end and from the user end of things, and ask how they have resolved staffing issues such that the people who use this equipment "successfully operate accessible MDE, assist with transfers and positioning of individuals with disabilities, and carry out the program access obligation regarding existing MDE." KFF is a more-or-less private organization that comes to mind; I am certain that you will think of others and that your proposed rules will benefit from the experience of the receivers and users of MDE as relayed to you through private organizations.
In addition to staffing requirements, your proposed rules ought to be more specific about your expectations concerning training of the people, i.e., the employees, who actually use this equipment "in, or in conjunction with, medical settings by health care providers for diagnostic purposes."
Once again, the big drawback here is that the rule you propose in Section 35.213 is more aspirational than mandatory. Perhaps that approach was your intent. If so, that approach is unsatisfactory to the disabled people who encounter MDE wielded by poorly trained individuals or perhaps even used by people who are not up to the task of using MDE the way the manufacturers intended it to be used. Provide the State and local entities you regulate with the means to measure the performance of these people, their employees – and let them know in the process, expressly or better yet, implicitly – that you too are measuring their performance with MDE.
Drawing from the lived experience of people that has already been reported to private organizations, follow the same approach concerning training as you take to obtain information on proposed further rules regarding staffing, above.
To summarize, combine your aspirational message with at least some mandatory language, and write some proposed rules that are more specific for the State and local entities in implementing your aspirational message.
Please read the disclaimer.
Comments