Disability policy file

Dina Titus Disability Policies

Switch to draftPreviewUpdateAdd title

  1. Titus Introduces the Travel and Tourism for All Act… This legislation would require the National Council on Disability to conduct a review and submit a report to Congress on the … will enable Congress to ensure that every American with a disability is able to enjoy travel throughout the United States.   …
  2. Rep. Titus Introduces Bill to Make Travel Easier for Individuals with Disabilities… The legislation, H.R. 5412, requires the National Council on Disability to make recommendations to Congress intended to ease travel burdens … Under the legislation, the National Council on Disability will conduct a review and submit a report to Congress 

Reps. Titus, Young Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Promote Disability Rights Worldwide

… legislation to help ensure that the State Department makes disability rights an international priority.  The Office of International Disability Rights Act, H.R. 3373, would establish in law the Office of …

  1. VA Disability Ratings Subject of House Hearing… 5, 2013   WASHINGTON, DC – The Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs of the House Committee on … Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) 100 percent temporary disability rating. According to a report by the VA Office of the Inspector …
  2. MEASURE TO SPEED VA REVIEW OF DISABILITY CLAIMS APPEALS PASSES HOUSE… Department of Veterans Affairs’ handling of appeals for disability claims passed in the House Wednesday night. The VA … the VA has reduced a logjam of more than 530,000 initial disability claims in recent years, a new backlog surfaced in 450,000 appeals
  1. Titus Celebrates House Passage of Pay As You Rate Act, Veterans’ Compensation COLA Act of 2015… Chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs. The Veterans’ … (HR 675) provides an increase in the rates of veterans’ disability compensation, compensation for dependents, clothing allowance, and …
  2. Rep. Titus Announces $472k Grant to Help Students with Disabilities… disabled as well as those at mainstream schools. “A disability should never prevent any child from succeeding in school and in … 7.5 million K-12 students are identified as having a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or
COVID 19 graphs

COVID19

Please use these links to help you when you need to find informaiton on COVID-19.

4/21/2020 – Governor Sisolak Announces Nevada School Buildings will not Re-Open During the 2019-20 School Year

http://www.doe.nv.gov/News__Media/Press_Releases/2020/Governor_Sisolak_Announces_Nevada_School_Buildings_will_not_Re-Open_During_the_2019-20_School_Year/


Note on test results: This data changes rapidly as labs conduct tests and discover new cases. The numbers may not always match the most recent reports released by local health jurisdictions since statewide cases will be updated as lab data are available. Additionally, these are laboratory-based data which may reflect some results on patients that live outside of Nevada. Those cases will be removed once the epidemiological investigation is performed. Click here for information on facilities in Nevada with COVID-19 cases

Schools & Families

The links below provide guidance to schools, students, and their families on how to prepare, prevent, and respond to COVID-19.

Consumers

The information below provides COVID-19-related guidance to Nevada consumers.

Patient Privacy Laws

In order to protect public health and safety, there are state and federal laws in place regarding patient privacy. Though we are all concerned about our own health, we need to recognize that these laws are in place to protect private citizens and we should respect their personal information.

What Laws Govern a Patient’s Private Health Information?

NRS 441A.220 prohibits disclosing personal health information without the consent of the individual except in limited circumstances. This information cannot be disclosed even with a search warrant, subpoena or discovery proceeding in a lawsuit. The health authority can only disclose the information necessary to assist the public in controlling or preventing communicable disease without violating the rights of any individual to their own personal health information. Regulations and policies of local health districts further implement this law.

Additional federal laws, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), may also apply. The HIPAA Privacy Rule is a national standard to protect individuals’ medical records and other personal health information. Entities that must follow the HIPAA regulations include health insurance companies, government programs that pay for health care (Medicare and Medicaid), and health care providers (doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc.). Some local health districts and public health authorities provide direct health care services, so they also comply with HIPAA.

What Information Can the Health Authority Disclose About a Case or Suspected Case of COVID-19?

The public health authority can publicly provide statistical information as long as the information does not identify any person who has or has been exposed to COVID-19. [NRS 441A.220(2)]

The public health authority can disclose specific, limited personal health information to the following:

  • Any person who has been exposed to COVID-19 [NAC 441A.300(1)(a)];
  • The parent, guardian or caregiver of a person who has been diagnosed with COVID-19 or has a person exposed to COVID-19 [NAC 441A.300(1)(b)];
  • Health care providers treating an individual who has been diagnosed with COVID-19 or a person who has been exposed to COVID-19 [NAC 441A.300(1)(c)];
  • Employers of a person diagnosed with COVID-19 if that person is employed in a sensitive occupation and the health authority determines that the potential for transmission of the disease is enhanced by his or her employment [NAC 441A.300(1)(d)]; and
  • Any person who has a medical need to know the information for their own protection or well-being as determined by the health authority. [NRS 441A.220(6)]

If an exception allows disclosure, it is limited. The health authority may only disclose information to those who have been exposed or are likely to be exposed sufficiently to acquire COVID-19. Only information which is necessary to protect another person’s health may be disclosed. [NAC 441A.300(2-3)]

The protection of first responders, including emergency medical service personnel, police officers, and firefighters, is critical to the protection of the community. Due to the recent spread of the disease, COVID-19 is not specifically listed as a communicable disease in the regulation which directly authorizes disclosure to first responders upon an exposure likely to cause transmission. [NAC 441A.305(1)(b) and (2)] First responders who have been exposed, however, fall under the exception as a person who has a medical need to know the information for their own protection or well-being. Whether someone has a medical need to know another person’s health information is determined by the relevant health authority and may be subject to federal privacy laws. [NRS 441A.220(6)NAC 441A.300(1)(a)]

Why do Public Health Authorities Protect the Personal Information of Individuals Who Have or May Have Been Exposed to COVID-19?

They must do so under the law. The public health authority must comply with the law to maintain the confidentiality of personal information.

It is critical that people are honest and accurate about where they have been and what they have done so that the public health authorities can identify all persons who may be exposed. Individuals would be less likely to cooperate with public health officials and provide personal information if they fear their personal information will be released to the public.

What is the Penalty for Unauthorized Disclosure of Personal Health Information?

Violating Nevada’s patient privacy laws is a crime punishable as a misdemeanor. [NRS 441A.910]

Home Care

The following documents provide guidance for individuals deemed close contacts, people under monitoring, or confirmed cases.

Travelers & Visitors

Visitors Traveling to Nevada and Nevadans Traveling Outside Nevada

On March 30, 2020, Governor Steve Sisolak issued a travel advisory for the State of Nevada, urging visitors or returning Nevadans to self-quarantine and
monitor their health for 14 days after arriving or returning to Nevada to help contain the spread of COVID-19 in Nevada.

Travelers are urged to self-quarantine and monitor their health for 14 days or the duration of their stay in Nevada, whichever is shorter. Travelers and returning Nevadans should not visit any public place or come into contact with those who are not members of their household unit.

The Governor is also strongly urging Nevadans to avoid non-essential travel during this time period, especially to places where the CDC has issued travel advisories. For Nevada residents who live in communities that border other states, please practice aggressive social distancing if you must cross state lines for essential daily matters. This advisory does not apply to healthcare, public health, public safety, transportation,and food supply essential employees. For more information, click on the links above.

CDC Travel Health Notices inform travelers and clinicians about current health issues that impact travelers’ health, like disease outbreaks, special events or gatherings, and natural disasters, in specific destinations. For updated CDC guidance on current travel advisories, visit the CDC Coronavirus Disease 2019 Information for Travel page.

For additional resources and travel advisories, and to inform your personal travel decisions, please visit:

Nevada Department of Transportation

When driving to, from, and throughout Nevada you can find updated Nevada highway conditions – including any potential weather-related closures – by logging onto www.nvroads.com or dialing 511 before driving. Also, you can download the NVRoads app on your mobile device for state highway updates. For additional information about the Nevada Department of Transportation you can visit their main site, here.

Healthcare Facilities and Laboratories

The following documents provide guidance to healthcare facilities, including hospitals, long-term care facilities, acute care facilities, and skilled nursing facilities, as well as medical laboratories.

Healthcare Facilities

Hospitals

Acute Care Facilities

Skilled Nursing Facilities

Long Term Care Facilities

Hospice Agencies

Medical Laboratories

Healthcare Providers and First Responders

The following documents provide guidance to healthcare providers—including home health care providers—and first responders.

Healthcare Workers

Home Healthcare Providers

Behavioral Health Providers

First Responders

Subscribe for Updates

Local Public Health Care Authorities & Tribes

The following documents and links provide identification, monitoring, and containment guidance to local public health authorities and tribal governments.

ABLE Nevada Text

Nevada ABLE

There’s no limit to what people with disabilities can do. Now, that includes saving, too.

https://savewithable.com/nv/home.html

With ABLE Nevada, you can save for qualified disability expenses without losing your eligibility for certain assistance programs, like SSI and Medicaid.

Plan highlights

Save with special tax advantages.

The earnings on your investments are federally tax-deferred and tax-free, if used for qualified disability expenses.1 That can help your savings compound, earning returns on your returns.

View More Nevada ABLE
Man at ATM machine with service dog

How Can I spend ABLE $

ABLE Accounts:

Rules for Spending ABLE Money
You can spend the money in your ABLE account on any “qualified disability expense.” This can include:

Housing (which can be mortgage payments, real property taxes, rent, furniture, heating fuel, gas, electricity, water, sewer, or garbage removal)
Transportation (including gasoline and car repairs, public transportation, paratransit, and taxis).


Medical expenses, prevention, and wellness (including insurance premiums and copays)

View More How Can I spend ABLE $
ABLE 10 Things You Need To Know Tex

ABLE Act

Many people who have disabilities are unfamiliar with the ABLE Law or what an ABLE Account is and how it can help them. Recently in Nevada I have been helping educate people with disabilities and also attorneys and some judges who hear cases on ABLE.  This has really educated me on the importance of an ABLE Account.

What is an ABLE account? An ABLE account is a tax-advantaged savings account where qualified individuals with disabilities can open a spending account as a result of the passage of the ABLE Act of 2014.  The person can make a contribution to their ABLE accounts on an after-tax basis. The earnings from ABLE funds are tax-deferred and are tax-free as long as the person uses them for qualified disability expenses.

Why the need for ABLE accounts? In most states people with disabilities can only have $2,000 in assets at any given time in order to remain eligible for many federal programs that many depend on programs like Supplemental Security Income (SSI).  Although under ABLE, they are now eligible for an ABLE savings account that will not affect their eligibility for SSI (up to $100,000), Medicaid and other public benefits. Also though the ABLE account it allows an increase this $2,000 asset limitation so that individuals account holder and their families can save money for their present and future needs.

View More ABLE Act

Disability Groups Oppose the Nomination of Kavanaugh

Disability Organizations are opposing Nomination of Kavanaugh and here is why.

Kavanaugh Thinks It’s Okay to Perform Elective Surgery on People Without Their Consent

Article on line listed below

 

Right now, Congress is in a deadlock over Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court. Senators are reviewing more than 1 million pages of his legal writing—which have laid out his stance on women’s reproductive rights (opposed), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (opposed), and the Affordable Care Act (opposed)—and members are battling over access to additional documentation that could reveal past experience with torture and wiretapping. While many of Kavanaugh’s opinions have been controversial—in particular his dissent from a decision that allowed an immigrant woman to have an abortion—one of his most problematic rulings has gone unreported. As a Judge in D.C. Circuit Court, Kavanaugh argued that people with disabilities could be forced to undergo elective surgeries, including abortion, without their consent.

In 2001, three intellectually disabled D.C. residents brought suit against the city in Doe ex rel. Tarlow v. D.C, after they were subjected to at least three involuntary procedures: two abortions and one elective eye surgery. Ultimately, the district court agreed that these women’s due process rights had been violated and that “constitutionally adequate procedures” had not been followed. The District Court ruled for the plaintiffs and held that D.C. must make “documented reasonable efforts to communicate” with patients and if unsuccessful, the government had to take into account the “totality of circumstances” before proceeding to ensure any decision is in the best interest of the patient. This decision codified patients’ right to self-determination, and struck down the practice of elective surgeries without consent from the patients at stake.

The lifetime pass Kavanaugh seems to be arguing for does not exist.
On appeal, Judge Kavanaugh vacated the District Court’s injunction, arguing that “accepting the wishes of patients who lack, and have always lacked the mental capacity to make medical decisions does not make logical sense.” That stands in contrast to even the most conservative interpretations of the laws that existed at the time, which required two separate health professionals to determine whether a patient had the capacity to make medical decisions before every procedure. The lifetime pass Kavanaugh seems to be arguing for, which would allow doctors to perform any procedures they wanted on a person who was once ruled unfit, does not exist.

One hundred years ago, Kavanaugh’s ruling would have been at home on the Supreme Court. In the 1920’s, in the famous 8-1 ruling of Buck v. Bell, the Supreme Court found a Virginia statute that allowed for the sexual sterilization of a third generation, “feebleminded” women was constitutional because “three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

For context, when the Supreme Court made that ruling, John Scopes had recently been put on trial for teaching evolution in public schools. Penicillin hadn’t been invented. It was still illegal in most states to marry someone of a different race. There was no such thing as a chocolate chip cookie, Scotch tape, or the Golden Gate Bridge. We didn’t know Pluto existed.

The 57 million Americans with disabilities are bracing themselves
We’ve made progress since then. Twenty-eight years ago, the Americans with Disabilities Act granted people with disabilities access to society. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act expanded the right to an education 43 years ago, and the Olmstead v. L.C. decision gave disabled people the right to live in their communities 19 years ago. All that will be meaningless the moment Kavanaugh is given a seat on the Supreme Court that allows him to rule that disabled Americans are not capable of deciding what’s best for them. It’s not hard to imagine that happening. He could rule that it’s okay for teachers to use seclusion and restraint because they know what’s best for the treatment of disabled children in school. He could say that community living isn’t the best option for someone successfully living in a home of their own because that’s what the nursing home lobby says.

As both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate gear up for what is likely to be a long hearing process, the 57 million Americans with disabilities are bracing themselves for the negative consequences of Judge Kavanaugh’s appointment. If that happens, the disability community’s history of activism in all forms—from their work to preserve the ACA, to fighting to end the use of electric shock therapy on children, to pushing for a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work—shows that when it’s most needed, the moral arc of the universe can be bent into a ramp to achieve justice.

AUCD Opposes the Nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States

Plain Language Summary Available

July 31, 2018

DOWNLOAD
pdf File Plain Text Nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh (286KB) [download]

pdf File Statement Nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh (236KB) [download]

>>Download and read a PDF plain language summary as well as the full text of AUCD’s statement at right

 

The Association of University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD) is a national organization that supports the right of self-determination for individuals with intellectual and other disabilities. After carefully reviewing opinions that fail to affirm this right and jeopardize access to healthcare for people with disabilities, AUCD has decided to oppose the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. “The appointment of Judge Kavanaugh threatens civil rights protections for people with disabilities including access to healthcare,” said Andrew Imparato, Executive Director of AUCD. “Judge Kavanaugh’s record on the D.C. Circuit has failed to support the critical principle of self-determination for people with intellectual disabilities and the importance of access to healthcare for millions of Americans with disabilities.” Two cases in Judge Kavanaugh’s record form the primary basis for our concerns.

In the 2007 ruling DOE v. District of Columbia and Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Administration, Judge Kavanaugh ruled that people with intellectual disabilities could be presumed incompetent to make medical decisions:

Judge Kavanaugh overruled multiple district court orders that had given people with intellectual disabilities who had been deemed not legally competent the right to have input into whether or not they would be subject to elective surgery. The lower courts had affirmed that a legally incompetent individual may be capable of expressing a choice or preference regarding medical treatment. The court therefore ordered the District of Columbia to make “documented reasonable efforts to communicate” with patients “regarding their wishes.” If communication was unsuccessful and a patient’s wishes couldn’t be determined, however, the lower court had allowed the government to determine the patient’s “best interests” by considering the “totality of the circumstances.”

In his written decision, Judge Kavanaugh neither acknowledged nor appeared to consider that a person could have an intellectual disability but still might understand the nature of a surgery or have a right to know, think about, or decide whether to undergo a procedure. Making an effort to communicate was viewed as an unnecessary standard to apply to the government when it wanted to perform surgery on a person with an intellectual disability because, in Judge Kavanaugh’s words, they were “by definition” incompetent so their input was not relevant to the decision. In his view, the Constitution would not protect people with intellectual disabilities from a state agency policy that allowed non-emergency elective surgery without informing them or making any effort to ascertain whether they wanted it. Liz Weintraub, Senior Advocacy Specialist at AUCD, commented on the ruling, “As a woman with an intellectual disability, I know what it is like for other people to try to make decisions about my life, my relationships, and my body. Judge Kavanaugh seems to think people like me don’t deserve a say in our own healthcare, and that to me is dangerous, discriminatory, and shows he doesn’t really understand the idea of ‘nothing about us without us’.”

Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent in Seven-Sky v. Holder illustrates his belief that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional:

Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent from the D.C. Circuit Court ruling that upheld the Affordable Care Act reflects his view that the law is unconstitutional and beyond the power of Congress. He rejected all of the government’s defenses of the ACA, concluding specifically that the individual mandate to purchase health insurance could not be justified under either the Taxation or Spending Clauses of the Constitution. Judge Kavanaugh’s rationale for overturning on the ACA was so extensive that it formed the basis of the four-vote dissent that would have struck down the ACA at the Supreme Court. “The Affordable Care Act is what stopped insurance companies from excluding people with pre-existing conditions, making it foundational to the lives of people with disabilities. If Judge Kavanaugh leads the Supreme Court to overturn the ACA, people with disabilities will lose access to health insurance and affordable medical care,” says AUCD Executive Director Andrew Imparato.

ACT

AUCD urges individuals and organizations to learn about Judge Kavanaugh’s record on the DC Circuit and use this opportunity to educate your Senators about the importance of self-determination and access to healthcare for millions of Americans with disabilities and their families.

—-

The Association of University Centers on Disabilities, located in Silver Spring, MD, is a national, nonprofit organization that promotes and supports the national network of interdisciplinary centers advancing policy and practice through research, education, leadership, and services for and with individuals with developmental and other disabilities, their families, and communities. For more information, visit www.aucd.org or contact aucdinfo@aucd.org

The American Association of People with Disabilities Opposes the Nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court

August 15, 2018

The American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) opposes the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court based on his previous rulings as a DC Circuit Court Judge that have devalued the lives and liberty of people with disabilities. Judge Kavanaugh’s rulings and statements on health care, self-determination, employment, and education threaten the rights of all Americans with disabilities.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) allowed millions more people with disabilities to gain access to health care by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of a pre-existing condition. Judge Kavanaugh has repeatedly expressed public skepticism of the ACA and has ruled in several cases to undermine elements of the law and hinder its implementation. These rulings set a dangerous precedent for the disability community. AAPD will not support a Supreme Court nominee whose actions and record jeopardize disabled individuals’ access to health care and, therefore, impact their ability to live, work, and participate in their communities.

The principle of self-determination holds that people with disabilities must have the freedom and authority to exercise control over their own lives. Based on his ruling in Doe ex rel. Tarlow v. D.C., Judge Kavanaugh believes otherwise. The Doe plaintiffs were subjected to elective surgeries based on the consent of DC officials; Judge Kavanaugh dismissed the notion that the plaintiffs could express a choice or preference regarding medical treatment on the basis of their intellectual disability. AAPD will not support a Supreme Court nominee who does not affirm the rights and abilities of people with disabilities to determine the course of their own lives.

Regarding employment discrimination, Judge Kavanaugh has consistently ruled in favor of employers while routinely disregarding the experiences of people with disabilities. He has time and time again, demonstrated undue deference to employers and a narrow understanding of anti-discrimination protections. AAPD will not support a Supreme Court nominee who does not protect the rights of workers with disabilities.

Judge Kavanaugh is also a strong proponent of school voucher programs. Typically, students with disabilities who participate in these programs are forced to waive their rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), including the right to receive a free and appropriate education (FAPE). Given the ongoing threats to a quality education for students with disabilities, AAPD will not support a Supreme Court nominee who is willing to trade away these protections.

“The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court is a very real threat to the lives and liberty of people with disabilities,” said Ted Kennedy, Jr., Chair of the AAPD Board of Directors. “His record gives every indication that as a Supreme Court Justice, Judge Kavanaugh’s rulings will turn back the progress of the disability rights movement to a pre-ADA era. We cannot be silent here. The Senate must hear from the disability community about the dangers of this nomination.”

AAPD urges other organizations as well as individuals to take action by educating yourself and others about Judge Kavanaugh’s record; and then contact your Senators to express your opposition and underscore the importance of health care and self-determination for all Americans with disabilities.

For a thorough review of disability-related cases involving Judge Brett Kavanaugh, please refer to this report by the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.

* * *

The American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) is a convener, connector, and catalyst for change, increasing the political and economic power of people with disabilities. As a national cross-disability rights organization, AAPD advocates for full civil rights for the over 56 million Americans with disabilities.

 

Rev Up Nevada

  • Become a REVUP Volunteer!
  • Pick up a information packet!
  • Help spread the word to your consumers about becoming registered to vote, and the steps to take to become registered.
  • Help spread the word to other agencies ,who assist persons with disabilities, on what their rights are to become registered to vote and how they can vote.
  • For more information you can also visit
  • REVUP helps the community of persons with disabilities. For too long, persons with disabilities have been on the back burner of attempting to let their voice be heard. This is in regards to obtaining the necessary resources they need, including housing, transportation, access to buildings that are not up to ADA accessibility standards, etc.

https://www.aapd.com/advocacy/voting/

Join Rev Up Nevada