DHHS ACTION NEEDED:

Here is what CHIA submitted to DHHS: click here

Return to Interpreter News Page

The US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) republished policy guidance today on Title VI's prohibition against national origin discrimination as it affects limited English proficient (LEP) persons. Federal Register, Vol 67, No. 22 Friday, 2/1/2002, 4968-4982

The web page for this notice is at

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2002_register&doci d=02-2467-filed

DHHS is soliciting comments on this guidance.  There are 9 questions they would like specific information on (please see below).  If you have submitted comments before, please submit them again.

Comments must be submitted on or before April 2, 2002. 

DHHS, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) will review all comments and will determine what modifications to the policy guidance, if any, are necessary.  

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Deeana Jang with ``Attention: LEP Comments,'' and should be sent to
200 Independence Avenue, SW
Room 506F
Washington, DC 20201

Comments may also be submitted by e-mail at LEP.comments@hhs.gov .

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Deeana Jang or Ronald Copeland at the
Office for Civil Rights, Room 506F, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201, addressed with

``Attention: LEP Comments;'' telephone toll-free number: 1-866-OCR-7748, or
202-619-0553; TDD: toll-free 1-800-537-7697. 
Arrangements to receive the policy in an alternative format may be made by contacting the named individuals.

9 key questions:

The Secretary is interested in comments on all aspects of the guidance, including comments on the issues listed below. If you are raising a concern, please be as specific as possible.
(1) Have persons with limited English proficiency seeking health care or social services benefitted as a result of the guidance? If so, what have been the benefits? Please be specific about your experiences.
(2) Have persons with limited English proficiency faced challenges or problems in accessing health care or social services following issuance of the guidance? If so, what have been the challenges or problems? Please be specific about your experiences.
(3) Have health care or social services providers faced challenges or problems in providing these services to persons with limited English proficiency as a result of the guidance? If so, what have been the challenges or problems? Please be specific about your experiences. The Secretary is particularly interested in the experiences of small providers.
(4) Are there areas of the guidance that you believe need to be clarified or modified? If so, please explain what areas, why the area(s) need clarification or modification, and provide any suggestions for clarification or modification.
(5) Has the guidance been effective in identifying reasonable ways of providing services to individuals with limited English proficiency? What are some of the cost-effective ways that are used successfully to provide services for persons with limited English proficiency that are not included in the guidance? Again, the Secretary is particularly interested in the experiences of small providers.
(6) What technical assistance from the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and other components of HHS would be most helpful to recipients/covered entities?
(7) In providing services to persons with limited English proficiency, what costs have health care or social services providers incurred in providing translation, interpreter, or other language services? Please be specific about your experiences. The Secretary is particularly interested in the experiences of small providers. If health care or social services providers have not yet provided translation, interpreter or other language services for persons with limited English proficiency, what costs are anticipated? Please provide the basis for your estimate.
(8) Some may assert that the guidance has materially assisted in achieving the goal of access to health or social services by limited English proficient individuals. Others may assert that the guidance has unintentionally had the opposite effect. Is there actual experience to support either view? Please describe.
(9) Based on your experience, does the guidance and/or OCR's application of the guidance in practice, strike the right balance with respect to the factors enunciated in the Department of Justice's October 26, 2001 memorandum: (1) The number or proportion of limited English proficient persons, (2) the frequency of contact with the program, (3) the nature and importance of the program, and (4) the resources available? Please note that these factors are discussed in greater detail in the Department of Justice memorandum. In particular, in considering the resources available, does the guidance and/or OCR's application of the guidance adequately factor in the costs of providing translation, interpreter or other language services to limited English proficient individuals, as well as the resources available to the recipient/covered entity?

(return to top of page)

Return to Interpreter News Page