My friend had an interview for DAS and they did want to speak with her child, she said as soon as they saw his level of disability (largely non-verbal), they immediately granted the DAS. So it could be an advantage to have your daughter answer.
Like I said, it needed changing, and I'm glad it has. It's an open forum, and it's naive of you to think the OP wouldn't get a wide range of answers and comments.
This. My child's intellectual disability is pretty severe, and he is unable to hold a conversation or answer questions. They have never asked to question him, but I would certainly allow it if they did. His level of disability would immediately be apparent. (Although I would still need to explain why he can't wait in a standard queue environment.)
Last night my daughter was up until 4am with belly pain, nausea and diarrhea. Today the gastroenterologist asked her how she's been, and she responded with "I'm fine." Same response no matter what doctor we see, no matter how sick shes been. "Im fine." Guarantee you if a cm asked her how she does waiting in lines she will say "fine" even though that is far from the truth. You appear able to articulate yourself before strangers, jolly good for you. Our neurodivergent kids often cant
I’d say you are both right. They certainly have the right to request to interview the child with you present and you by all means have the right to refuse that interview … either way a decision gets made and everyone moves on
There are children whose disability - from a variety of disabilities - may impact their ability to be interviewed. Disney has always been understanding of this.
Why even bring commentary like this? All this does is sew ******* and stress into a frustrating situation while showing your clear denial of the number of users when everyone with every possible need gets the same gold level pass. Being upset that the guidelines changed isn't helped by making up conspiracies about why.
Yes, something had to be done, I don't think any of us would argue that; however, what they did and the timing they did it in did make it clear that it was far more about $$$ than fixing the problems. There were ways to find a much better balance and reduce the stress for those who need assistance but no longer qualify for the DAS. For example, they could setup their systems where they scan a guest's magicband or admission media and it communicates to the CM exactly what their needs are rather than needing to verbally explain every single time. For many, explaining constantly is very tiring. Some have suggested writing it down, but in reality DH has found that most CMs won't even look at something that is written because they are afraid it will look like them asking for documentation. Disney could also do things to better assist people with disabilities, such as posting videos of what loading and unloading looks like for mobility devices at every attraction, including showing how any transfer devices work, this would help them be able to determine if an attraction is appropriate before waiting in line just to find out they can't ride because of how they would have to transfer. Other theme parks have started to do this and it is very valuable and reduces everyone's wait times. They could provide sculptures of all attractions and characters for those with limited vision to feel, again other theme parks are starting to do this as well. They could add back in much more live entertainment, this actually reduces the need for accommodations elsewhere as many who are disabled tend to go more to the shows and other entertainment than the rides anyway, of course that isn't true for all, but it does play a factor and once again demonstrates it was more about the $$$$ than fixing the issues.
The idea WAS to fix the issues with DAS because the paid option they had at the time was basically useless due to the number of DAS users. And as a business, they have an obligation to provide the best possible experience for all guest while maximizing profits.
Except - no one is required to verbally explain their medical condition at each ride in order to find the process they need to follow if they need to exit the line and then re-enter…which is the DAS replacement procedure for those who have been denied. And you can also - should the return to line process end up not covering your needs - go to the blue umbrella kiosks and use the in park/online system to reapply for DAS giving ‘real time’ examples of why DAS is the only accommodation that will work.
The change needed to happen regardless of whether they were going to sell LL access. You can't have half of the park eligible to skip every line as many times as desired, which is what DAS was turning into, because now the LL line (full of DAS users and their parties) was effectively becoming the main line, with a secondary line of those who didn't find a reason to apply. Many in the DAS line only needed the DAS line because of how many people were in that line in the first place. When visiting the park, when ride capacities are filled with mainly LL and most of those people are there for a disability, it's a problem. Operations had to figure out if there is some alternative way to meet people's needs, which is why DAS is being reserved for people who need it most or all of the time, not people who might need it for some rides sometimes. I have taken those trips where their system was pushed to fill the entire ride from LL, then allow one party from standby - and fixing that is not about greed.
It's a fine line between asking a couple of questions about needs and crossing the line violating HIPAA by asking medical questions of a child. The child might not know what an appropriate answer would be to protect their personal health information where a parent would.
While I understand your point, your statement is entirely inaccurate. HIPAA does not pertain here. HIPAA guards healthcare information exchanged between healthcare professionals and/or others involved in a patient's care.
While a person can share information they are not required to. Under ADA one only needs to share what is relevant for the accommodation requested. However when asking questions of a child they could easily ask questions of the child and receive too much information which since I as an adult did not consent too and the child is not allowed to consent too, that would certainly violate HIPAA.
Sorry, but no. This is a pet peeve of mine. People vastly misunderstand HIPAA. HIPAA only pertains to healthcare providers, health plans, healthcare clearing houses, and other business associates who perform related functions for such entities that might bring them into contact with PHI. WDW is not bound by HIPAA regulations. HIPAA does not pertain to requesting accommodations from a public business. It simply doesn't.
True, you only need to share as much or as little as you feel comfortable sharing. If the business doesn't feel you made your case for accommodation and you don't wish to share more, that's your choice; if you feel they are asking for too much, that's an entirely different matter and you can file a complaint with the ADA -- it is not a HIPAA violation though. There is no legal definition of "receiving too much information" because it's entirely up to you to share or not. Your consent is implied when they ask to speak to the child and you allow the child to be in front of the CM (camera or in person).
Disney doesn't want you to write such information in the chat because they don't keep the chat files in a manner consistent with storing PHI. But verbally it can be shared, by child or adult. Whether you want that information shared is a different argument. Again not a HIPAA matter; a matter of personal preference.
I agree with you. Again, though, it has nothing to do with HIPAA; it's more a preference or maybe a morality factor than any matter of legality. I do believe the OP's situation was one of misunderstanding on her part. In 15+ years I am not aware of any regular situation of a CM asking a child about disability accommodations or medical matters.
That has NOT been DH's experience, he states what his needs are and then they ask WHY he has those needs.
lanejudy covered this really well - just chiming to back her up. She knows what she is talking about; What you are discussing is not what HIPAA is. Oversharing by the patient or their family is not regulated and is not a violation of anything. If Disney called your doctor and THEY shared without permission, that would be HIPAA.
