U.S. Healthcare System Isn’t Ready for Surge of Disabled Seniors

By Judith Graham, KFF Health News

The number of older adults with disabilities — difficulty with walking, seeing, hearing, memory, cognition, or performing daily tasks such as bathing or using the bathroom — will soar in the decades ahead, as baby boomers enter their 70s, 80s, and 90s.

But the health care system isn’t ready to address their needs.

That became painfully obvious during the covid-19 pandemic, when older adults with disabilities had trouble getting treatments and hundreds of thousands died. Now, the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health are targeting some failures that led to those problems.

One initiative strengthens access to medical treatments, equipment, and web-based programs for people with disabilities. The other recognizes that people with disabilities, including older adults, are a separate population with special health concerns that need more research and attention.

Lisa Iezzoni, 69, a professor at Harvard Medical School who has lived with multiple sclerosis since her early 20s and is widely considered the godmother of research on disability, called the developments “an important attempt to make health care more equitable for people with disabilities.”

“For too long, medical providers have failed to address change in society, changes in technology, and changes in the kind of assistance that people need,” she said.

Among Iezzoni’s notable findings published in recent years:

Most doctors are biased: In survey results published in 2021, 82% of physicians admitted they believed people with significant disabilities have a worse quality of life than those without impairments. Only 57% said they welcomed disabled patients.

“It’s shocking that so many physicians say they don’t want to care for these patients,” said Eric Campbell, a co-author of the study and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado.

While the findings apply to disabled people of all ages, a larger proportion of older adults live with disabilities than younger age groups. About one-third of people 65 and older — nearly 19 million seniors — have a disability, according to the Institute on Disability at the University of New Hampshire.

Doctors don’t understand their responsibilities: In 2022, Iezzoni, Campbell, and colleagues reported that 36% of physicians had little to no knowledge of their responsibilities under the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act, indicating a concerning lack of training. The ADA requires medical practices to provide equal access to people with disabilities and accommodate disability-related needs.

Among the practical consequences: Few clinics have height-adjustable tables or mechanical lifts that enable people who are frail or use wheelchairs to receive thorough medical examinations. Only a small number have scales to weigh patients in wheelchairs. And most diagnostic imaging equipment can’t be used by people with serious mobility limitations.

Iezzoni has experienced these issues directly. She relies on a wheelchair and can’t transfer to a fixed-height exam table. She told me she hasn’t been weighed in years.

Among the medical consequences: People with disabilities receive less preventive care and suffer from poorer health than other people, as well as more coexisting medical conditions. Physicians too often rely on incomplete information in making recommendations. There are more barriers to treatment and patients are less satisfied with the care they do get.

Discrimination in Healthcare

Egregiously, during the pandemic, when crisis standards of care were developed, people with disabilities and older adults were deemed low priorities. These standards were meant to ration care, when necessary, given shortages of respirators and other potentially lifesaving interventions.

There’s no starker example of the deleterious confluence of bias against seniors and people with disabilities. Unfortunately, older adults with disabilities routinely encounter these twinned types of discrimination when seeking medical care.

Such discrimination would be explicitly banned under a rule proposed by HHS in September. For the first time in 50 years, it would update Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a landmark statute that helped establish civil rights for people with disabilities.

The new rule sets specific, enforceable standards for accessible equipment, including exam tables, scales, and diagnostic equipment. And it requires that electronic medical records, medical apps, and websites be made usable for people with various impairments and prohibits treatment policies based on stereotypes about people with disabilities, such as covid-era crisis standards of care.

“This will make a really big difference to disabled people of all ages, especially older adults,” said Alison Barkoff, who heads the HHS Administration for Community Living. She expects the rule to be finalized this year, with provisions related to medical equipment going into effect in 2026. Medical providers will bear extra costs associated with compliance.

Also in September, NIH designated people with disabilities as a population with health disparities that deserves further attention. This makes a new funding stream available and “should spur data collection that allows us to look with greater precision at the barriers and structural issues that have held people with disabilities back,” said Bonnielin Swenor, director of the Johns Hopkins University Disability Health Research Center.

One important barrier for older adults: Unlike younger adults with disabilities, many seniors with impairments don’t identify themselves as disabled.

“Before my mom died in October 2019, she became blind from macular degeneration and deaf from hereditary hearing loss. But she would never say she was disabled,” Iezzoni said.

Similarly, older adults who can’t walk after a stroke or because of severe osteoarthritis generally think of themselves as having a medical condition, not a disability.

Meanwhile, seniors haven’t been well integrated into the disability rights movement, which has been led by young and middle-aged adults. They typically don’t join disability-oriented communities that offer support from people with similar experiences. And they don’t ask for accommodations they might be entitled to under the ADA or the 1973 Rehabilitation Act.

Many seniors don’t even realize they have rights under these laws, Swenor said. “We need to think more inclusively about people with disabilities and ensure that older adults are fully included at this really important moment of change.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.

Cities Sued to Make Sidewalks Accessible for Disabled People

By Maureen O’Hagan, Kaiser Health News

From her Baltimore dining room, Susan Goodlaxson can see her neighbor gardening across the street. But while other neighbors stop to chat, Goodlaxson just watches from the window. She uses a wheelchair, and there isn’t a single curb ramp on her block.

If the 66-year-old wanted to join, she’d have to jump her wheelchair down the 7½-inch curb and risk a fall. Ditto if she wanted to wheel over to the library, a trip that would require riding in the street to avoid rampless curbs and broken sidewalks.

“I don’t feel like it’s asking too much to be able to move your wheelchair around the city,” she said.

Federal law backs her up. Since 1990, the Americans With Disabilities Act has required governmental entities to provide people with disabilities access to programs and services enjoyed by their nondisabled peers. That includes sidewalks and curb ramps that make it possible to safely cross the street.

In Baltimore and many other communities across the U.S., there has been widespread noncompliance with this part of the law.

“An awful lot of [communities] have either disregarded their obligations under the ADA or made it the last priority,” noted Tom Stenson, a lawyer with Disability Rights Oregon, a nonprofit advocacy group. “There’s a culture throughout America of not taking the needs of people with disabilities seriously.”

SUSAN GOODLAXSON

In Baltimore, just 1.3% of curb ramps meet federal standards, according to the city’s own figures. In Oregon, about 9% of corners maintained by the state transportation department are compliant. San Jose, California, counted 27,621 corners with faulty or nonexistent curb ramps. Boston estimates fewer than half of its curb ramps are compliant.

Class-Action Lawsuits

In recent years, there’s been a flurry of class-action lawsuits, including one filed against Baltimore in June, with Goodlaxson among the plaintiffs.

Philadelphia was sued in 2019 over the condition of its sidewalks. Chicago was sued the same year for failure to install audible pedestrian signals, more than a decade after settling a suit over curb ramps.

In 2018, Atlanta was sued. A survey there determined that only 20% of sidewalks were in sufficient condition to be used by people in wheelchairs or motorized scooters and about 30% had curb ramps. Seattle settled a class-action suit in 2017. San Francisco and Long Beach, California, were sued in 2014 to make their sidewalks more accessible to wheelchairs.

The city of New York and its transit authority have faced repeated major ADA lawsuits, some alleging the same lack of access for people with disabilities that was supposed to be addressed in a lawsuit that was filed in the 1990s and later settled.

Los Angeles settled what is believed to be the largest of these suits in 2015. Its problems with sidewalks and curb ramps were so widespread that the city estimated it would cost $1.4 billion and take 30 years to get into compliance. In the years leading up to the suit, the city wasn’t allocating money for sidewalk repairs, for the ADA or otherwise, even while paying out millions in injury claims.

In all, hundreds of jurisdictions have faced lawsuits or entered settlement agreements after failing to meet ADA requirements for pedestrians and mass transit users.

The sheer number of noncompliant sidewalks, curb ramps, pedestrian signals and subway stations illustrates the challenges for people with disabilities.

It also leaves cities in a legal and financial squeeze, with the average curb ramp costing between $9,000 and$19,000. When the court requires a jurisdiction to build thousands of them to catch up, it can strain budgets.

Rosem Morton / for KHN

The ADA and the 1973 Rehabilitation Act resulted in significant changes that improved access and accommodations for people with disabilities. The ADA is clear that people with disabilities have the same right to pedestrian infrastructure as anyone else.

There are requirements covering a curb ramp’s width, slope and other specifications. Even a 1-inch lip can be too high for a wheelchair user to navigate. A slope that is a few degrees too steep can tip someone to the ground. Sidewalks that are crumbling, pothole-filled or otherwise obstructed — with utility poles, for example — force wheelchair users into the street for a dangerous ride.

No one expected the ADA to fix all these problems immediately. Under the law, new sidewalks must be built for accessibility. As for existing sidewalks, a federal appeals court in 1993 ruled that curb ramps must be installed or regraded when the road is altered — say, when it’s repaved.

Compliance Lags

Yet by 1999 it was clear many jurisdictions were ignoring the law. The U.S. Department of Justice began enforcement efforts, entering into settlement agreements with more than 200 non-compliant jurisdictions representing every state since 2000.

Still, compliance still lags.

Officials in Baltimore, New York and Los Angeles declined to comment for this article. Tony Snyder, manager of the Oregon Department of Transportation’s ADA program, said siloed funding sources, strict regulations and costs have been among the hurdles over the years.

“It wasn’t that ODOT doesn’t value accessibility,” he said. While fewer than 10% of the state’s ramps meet standards, he said, a lot of noncompliant ramps are nonetheless “usable.”

Kelly Lynch, deputy director and general counsel for the Montana League of Cities and Towns, an association that represents 127 municipal governments, agreed that costs can add up. She’s been working to help fellow Montanans —and, she hopes, officials in other jurisdictions across the country through the National League of Cities — find a path toward full accessibility, even if the steps are incremental.

Some changes, including educating road crews on the rules, are relatively simple. But a bigger problem is a widespread lack of spending on the nation’s infrastructure. “Our streets are falling apart, and so are our sidewalks,” Lynch said.

In August, the Senate defeated an amendment by Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) to a $1 trillion infrastructure bill that would have required state and local entities to describe how they would use federal dollars to improve accessibility for people with disabilities and for underserved communities. Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) called Duckworth’s amendment “politically correct virtue signaling” and argued that transit agencies don’t need that kind of federal oversight.

On top of the broader infrastructure issues, many officials don’t fully understand the ADA or its requirements, Lynch believes. And as the mother of a disabled son, she also said there’s another big factor at play: “People still discriminate against people with disabilities.”

As for Baltimore, Goodlaxson said she repeatedly called the city asking for curb cuts and sidewalk repairs. She remembers a crew coming to look at the sidewalks — and then nothing happening.

Advocacy organizations tried to negotiate with city officials, hoping to get Baltimore’s infrastructure brought into compliance on a timetable. When that didn’t work, they filed suit.

Most of these kinds of ADA cases begin similarly, with negotiations long before lawsuits. Some jurisdictions settled quickly and worked hard at improvements. Other cases go less smoothly. Oregon’s transportation department, which was also sued, is in danger of missing its construction deadlines under the settlement. Some repairs had to be redone because they still fell short of ADA requirements.

Sometimes cities try to get cases thrown out of court by pointing to the 1993 appeals court decision and arguing there’s no evidence the road has been altered since then, so ADA requirements haven’t kicked in. In New York, the transit authority argues in an ongoing lawsuit that while wheelchair users can’t ride, say, three-quarters of the city’s subways because there are no elevators, they can instead take the bus.

Some jurisdictions fight bitterly. Los Angeles spent five years in court before agreeing to settle. Linda Dardarian, one of the plaintiff’s attorneys, said cities don’t fully recognize sidewalk and curb ramp accessibility as a civil right. “They have viewed it as just another maintenance obligation, [like] grooming street trees.”

When the case was settled, the judge ordered Los Angeles to pay nearly $12 million to cover the other side’s legal fees and costs, on top of the estimated $1.4 billion it will cost to come into compliance.

Under these settlements, repairs often stretch a decade or more, and the city or town typically must pay for surveys, measurements and disability consultants to ensure compliance.

From the plaintiffs’ point of view, the challenge of these lawsuits is that there isn’t a huge hammer to hold governments accountable.

“If you don’t build the ramps, the penalty is you have to build the ramps,” said Stenson of Disability Rights Oregon, which provided legal representation to a plaintiff in the Oregon transportation department suit.

For those who can easily get around town, the issue can be invisible.

Goodlaxson didn’t see the problem until she began using a wheelchair five years ago, after surgery for a brain tumor. She remembers seeing people riding their wheelchairs in the street, thinking, “that doesn’t look safe. But I didn’t give it any more thought.”

Now, she realizes “people are terrified, but they can’t do it any other way.”

Kaiser Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.

Advocating for Your Disabled Child at Public Schools

By Barby Ingle, PNN Columnist

With school starting in the coming weeks, I have been thinking about the special assistance I recieved as a child and how hard my mom and family had to fight for the help I needed. As a child, I was diagnosed with a severe learning disability and had to take special education classes through middle school and have special provisions and testing in high school and college.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, about 5.5 million children with disabilities receive special education and related services, and are protected through the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Some kids with special needs do not qualify under IDEA, but are served under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

If you are a parent with a disabled child, you may need to inform school administrators that IDEA and the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) establish a legal premise that ensures that children with invisible disabilities are afforded the same rights and access to services as children with other disabilities.

Being a part of this system has given me some insight as to how it works. For instance, my parents had to fight for my right to special education teachers and sessions. It should have been much easier for me to get that assistance, but in the 1970’s schools often didn’t want to help.

Federal law prohibits discrimination based upon disability. I eventually got the care I needed, but had to switch from private school to a public school, and my parents had to file and win a lawsuit for the special needs program to start at my elementary school. Their activism not only helped me, but all of the disabled kids that also needed assistance.

What Section 504 Requires

Section 504 is now commonly used across the country for children with learning disabilities, but I still hear of cases where a child has a chronic illness and their parents have to fight for access to a special needs program.

Section 504 is an anti-discrimination, civil rights statute that requires the needs of students with disabilities to be met as adequately as the needs of the non-disabled. It’s purpose is to give children the tools they need to prepare them to be adults who can participate in society through employment and independent living.

A child with a pain disease, disorder, syndrome or condition is protected under Section 504 if they have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Special assistance should be individualized to your child’s specific needs. This includes deciding how many days they go to special sessions, if they are in the main classroom full-time or part-time, if they get to take their tests in private rooms or have someone read to them the questions, and being allowed to respond verbally if writing is difficult for them.

Many children with chronic pain match the legal definition of a disability, which qualifies them to be protected by federal laws in school and in society as a whole. Even though the pain can’t be seen by others and is subjective, these kids are protected under the law.

How to Help Your Child

A child with chronic pain or an invisible disabling illness will experience physical, social and emotional challenges. You can help educate administrators, teachers and classroom aides about your child’s condition by giving them a list of symptoms and special needs. Be sure to include invisible symptoms and how the child learns best. For instance, they may need a quiet area where the lights are lowered during testing to help them concentrate. Or a child may need to wear sunglasses if they experience migraines.

A parent can also list their child’s strengths, aspirations, likes and dislikes. You should be prepared with medical documentation to educate staff about your child’s conditions and be prepared to appeal decisions made by the school if they are not providing what it takes to assist your child.

Know which kind of special accommodations are needed and should be available. Does your child need adjusted class schedules or grading, behavior management support, extended time on tests and assignments, modified textbooks or audio-video materials, reduced homework or classwork, verbal or visual testing, or technology aids?

Some children may also need help making the transition between homeschooling, special classes and regular classes. It is your responsibility as a parent to stay on top of this and keeping all involved in the loop. Remember, you are the voice of your child and can speak up at any time throughout the year.

Unlike when I was a child who started in private school and had to switch to public schools to get the assistance I needed, today students with disabilities who attend charter schools have the same Section 504 rights as those who attend public schools.

My final tip is to keep a positive attitude when facing challenges and use your right to appeal school decisions when appropriate. Keep track of your child’s progress and advocate for additional services or changes when needed. These needs may change over time. I needed more assistance and help up until 9th grade, and as I learned and grew my plan changed.

From kindergarten through college, keep an eye out for when changes are needed or when services need to upgrade or downgrade, and whether something your child needs is being neglected. For more information and assistance, contact the National Education Association.

Barby Ingle lives with reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD), migralepsy and endometriosis. Barby is a chronic pain educator, patient advocate, and president of the International Pain Foundation. She is also a motivational speaker and best-selling author on pain topics.

More information about Barby can be found at her website.  

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represents the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

Civil Rights Case Gives Hope to Pain Patients

By Richard Dobson, MD, Guest Columnist

People with chronic disabling pain frequently complain that doctors discharge them from their practice because of the medications they take. Sometimes doctors refuse to accept patients who are taking opioid pain medications, even though the medications treat a legitimate medical condition.

There may be hope that such actions will be considered violations of the civil rights of patients.

This week the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) signed a formal agreement with Selma Medical Associates, a large primary care practice in Virginia, that may open the door for people with chronic pain to regain their full access to medical care.

Selma Medical refused to schedule a new patient appointment for a man who was taking the addiction treatment drug Suboxone. He filed a civil rights complaint asserting that his rights were violated because has a disability.

According to the complaint, Selma Medical “regularly turns away prospective new patients who are treated with narcotic controlled substances such as Suboxone.”

The DOJ and Selma Medical settled the complaint out-of-court. The full agreement can be read here.

In essence, Selma Medical agreed to stop discriminating on the basis of disability, including opioid use disorder (OUD). The settlement identifies several specific ways that Selma Medical was violating the civil rights of people with disabilities.

“By refusing to accept the Complainant for a new family practice appointment solely because he takes Suboxone, Selma Medical discriminated against him by denying him the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of Selma Medical.

By turning away the Complainant and other prospective patients who are treated with narcotic controlled substances, including Suboxone, Selma Medical imposed eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out individuals with OUD.

Further, Selma Medical failed to make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities.”

In the agreement, Selma Medical agreed to stop discriminating now and in the future. The staff and administration are also required to undergo intensive training on the implementation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).

Importantly for pain patients, the agreement applies to people taking “narcotic medications” for any reason and is not limited to people who are taking Suboxone for OUD. The agreement does seem to imply that people taking opioid medications also have their civil rights violated if they are refused medical care on the basis of their diagnosis and their use of opioids.

A former staff attorney in the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division agrees.  

“This formal settlement agreement from DOJ affirms that discrimination in access to medical treatment based solely on an individual’s use of a particular medication — in this case, a narcotic controlled substance — may violate the law,” says Kate Nicholson, a pain patient and civil rights attorney who helped draft federal regulations under the ADA.

Anyone who has chronic pain and who is discharged from a practice or refused admission to a medical practice should let the medical staff know that this is a violation of the ADA. Show them the agreement between Selma Medical and the DOJ. Then if the medical practice still refuses care, file a formal complaint with the Office of Civil Rights. Instructions on filing can be found here.

As part of the settlement agreement, Selma Medical had to pay $30,000 to the complainant for “the discrimination and the harm he has endured, including, but not limited to, emotional distress and pain and suffering.” Selma Medical also had to pay a civil penalty of $10,000.

It seems to me that the substance of this agreement gives real hope to the chronic pain community that discrimination based on disability, even if the disability is based on pain, is illegal and violates their civil rights.

Richard Dobson, MD, worked as a physician in the Rochester, New York area for over 30 years, treating and rehabilitating people suffering from chronic pain, mostly as the result of work or motor vehicle accidents.  He is now retired.  

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represents the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

How Rx Opioids Helped Me Work Again

By Kate Nicholson, Guest Columnist

I recently told 2,200 intimate listeners during a TED Talk how a surgical error left me in severe pain, unable to sit or stand, and largely bedridden for almost twenty years.

I also explained that with appropriate pain management, including treatment with opioids, I continued working as a high-level federal civil rights prosecutor despite my physical limitations. I won important arguments in federal court, arguing from a folding lawn chair. I drafted the current regulations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), coordinated with the White House, and supervised thousands of cases by hundreds of attorneys across the country from a computer screen and well-camouflaged bed.

And when my pain finally improved, I stopped taking opioids.

A part of me was not eager to go public as someone who used opioids, for the same reasons that I was initially reluctant to take opioids for pain. Opioids carry a stigma, one that is only increasing today in an era of opioid abuse.

The increase in prosecutions and the oversight of physicians, and the difficulty people in pain today experience in getting appropriate pain medication motivated me to tell my story.   

My story of pain began 23 years ago. I was working at my desk in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department, putting the finishing touches on a document due to court, when my back started to burn. It felt like acid eating my spine. My muscles seized and threw me from my chair.  As I curled on the floor, my body seared with pain.

Over the coming days and weeks, the pain only intensified. Any postural compression on my spine caused electrical and burning sensations to escalate like an alarm that grows louder and louder.

At the age of 30, just a few years out of Harvard law school, I could barely stand and sitting was impossible. So, I began to conduct my life lying down. For a while, I was able to commute, lying across the backseat of a car to work from a futon on the floor of my office, using a walker to get from place to place. Then for many, many years, I was entirely bedridden.

Two things allowed me to maintain a life under these circumstances. The first is that I happened to be working in one of the few jobs that would accommodate me. When my pain began, I was enforcing the ADA, a civil rights law that protects the rights of individuals with everything from multiple sclerosis to cancer to HIV disease.

The second and more critical factor was my access to good medical care. My pain began in the 1990s, when the pendulum on pain swung decidedly in the opposite direction of where it is today.  I had access to the best doctors and to treatment at a pain management clinic. My physicians tried all sorts of treatments, from lidocaine infusions and directed injections, to nerve ablations and a surgery to separate nerves from adhesions. Nothing restored my mobility or diminished the pain.

Early on, I refused to take opioids.  I was worried about addiction and stigma.  When my doctors initially approached me about taking opioids for pain, I was, at first, devastated. I felt like they were giving up, that I was being put out to pasture.  But I had exhausted my available treatment options, so I relented and underwent psychological screening to determine if opioids were appropriate. 

As soon as I took opioids, I improved. I wasn’t foggy or especially euphoric. In fact, the opposite happened, space opened in my mind and I could work again.  I also never developed a tolerance, requiring more medication for the same level of pain relief. 

Opioids did not heal me. Integrative treatment over a long period of time did.  But opioids gave me a life until I could find my way to healing. Importantly, they allowed me to continue to work.  

I understand that opioids are complicated. People are different. I also recognize that as a public health matter, the interests of treatment must be balanced against the potential for abuse.  But today we have no such balance: our media attention and public policy focus singularly on abuse.

Serious physical pain needs to figure into the conversation, especially since severe or persistent pain affects 25 times more Americans than opioid abuse.

I worry that we are throwing out the baby with the bath water. By focusing on a single substance, we are not addressing the root causes of addiction.  By placing undue pressure on physicians and the doctor-patient relationship we abandon people in severe pain, many of whom could contribute and lead productive lives, to their suffering.

Kate Nicholson lives in Colorado. She served in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice for more than 20 years, practicing health-related civil rights law and securing powerful victories including in the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Kate is currently writing a book about her personal experiences with severe chronic pain. She can be reached through her website at www.katemnicholson.com. 

You can watch Kate's TED Talk below:

Should You Tell an Employer About Your Chronic Pain?

By Lana Barhum, Columnist

Telling your boss or a potential employer about your chronic pain condition can be slippery slope. 

If you disclose it, you may wind up dealing with judgments and misguided attitudes from supervisors and coworkers about the extent of your chronic pain. On the other hand, if you don’t disclose it, you may miss out on accommodations you need and are entitled to.

There is always going to be risk when you disclose. And it is hard to know whether an employer will be accommodating or treat you unfairly.   

You do have rights as an employee and a person living with chronic pain. You should know what they are before you decide whether to disclose.

You Do Not Have to Be Visibly Disabled

Many people who live with chronic pain don’t consider themselves “disabled.”  Even so, they may still qualify for accommodations under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The ADA defines a person with disability as someone who has “a physical or mental impairment” that significantly alters one or more major life activities. You may have trouble sitting, standing or walking, for example. The key is whether the limitation is substantial

It is important to note the ADA’s definition is a legal one, not medical. And because it is a legal definition, the meaning of disability is different than it would be under other laws. The ADA doesn’t list all the covered conditions, which gives some flexibility to people living with  non-specific chronic pain; which is pain that lasts longer than three months, but has no specific medical cause.

For example, you could have joint pain from rheumatoid arthritis, while someone else’s back pain may not be related to a specific event or health condition. It doesn’t make the other person’s pain any less valid than yours or diminish their need for job accommodations. Back pain would still be considered an impairment.

You Do Not Have to Disclose When Job Hunting

The ADA does not require you to disclose your medical conditions when interviewing and applying for jobs.  However, the employer is allowed to ask questions about whether there is anything that could prevent you from doing the job required. 

They may inquire about medical conditions and request a medical exam, but only if they are doing this with all their new hires and being in good physical health is a requirement to perform the job.

You Do Not Have Disclose When You Start a New Job

If you didn’t disclose your condition while interviewing or when you started the job, you can still ask for accommodations later.  You have the right to ask when the need arises.

If you request an accommodation, an employer is allowed to ask for a reasonable corroboration of your need for one,  such as a doctor’s letter. You can disclose what you want about your medical condition and it doesn’t have to be everything.

You Can Disclose on Your Own Timetable

You are under no legal obligation to tell anybody at your job about your chronic pain.  Your employer also does not have any legal right to request this information from you; unless it involves health and safety obligations they are required to meet.  

It is your decision when and if you want to tell your employer, ask for accommodations and/or share with your co-workers.  You never have to let anyone know if you don’t want to.

Should You Disclose?

If you believe chronic pain affects your ability to do your job, think about the ways it does and what solutions there might be.  For example, are you leaving work often for medical appointments? Would a flexible schedule or working from home one day a week help your situation?

Or could you benefit from other tools that make it easier to work, such as an ergonomic workstation?  Keyboards, mice, office chairs, standing desks and other ergonomically designed tools are increasingly being used in the workplace because they reduce the risk of back pain and other musculoskeletal disorders. 

A good resource where you can find examples of accommodations for specific medical conditions is the Job Accommodation Network.

Things May Not Go as You Plan

If you choose to disclose, you may not get the response you want. Your employer is prohibited by law from terminating you based on your need for accommodation.  However, they might find other ways to get rid of you or retaliate, such as changing your work schedule or denying you a promotion.

They’re taking a big risk if they do. Any form of retaliation when someone asserts their rights is illegal under the ADA. The question will be -- can you prove it? Always keep good records and notes about your communications with an employer about your medical conditions.

Your employer can deny your request for a specific accommodation, provided they are willing to accommodate you in other ways.  For example, if your office space is cold and your joints hurt more in that environment, they could deny your request for a space heater due to fire concerns, but offer to move you to a warmer section of the office as an alternative.

The good news is that your employer cannot flat out deny your request for accommodation. They are required to make a good faith effort to accommodate you in ways that make it easier to do your job with chronic pain.

Good Employers Want to Keep Good Employees

There are no easy answers as to whether you should or shouldn’t disclose your chronic pain to your employer. You should do what works best for you and your workplace. A good employer will be motivated to keep you and will do everything to accommodate you. Others may not.

Make sure you are continually updating your resume and your skill-set should you need to look for a new job.

I have been fortunate to work for companies that have accommodated my needs as a person with chronic pain.  They have understood my need for a flexible work schedule, an ergonomic workstation, and to be able to leave work early or show up late after medical appointments. They’ve made it easier for me to be successful at my job.

I know the idea of disclosure can make you nervous, but it may help you get the support necessary to be a better employee.  From my experience, most employers are accommodating and want to keep valuable employees. They know that the best employees are found in comfortable workplaces.

Lana Barhum is a medical writer, patient advocate, legal assistant and mother. Having lived with rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia since 2008, Lana uses her experiences to share expert advice on living successfully with chronic illness. She has written for several online health communities, including Alliance Health, Upwell, Mango Health, and The Mighty.

To learn more about Lana, visit her website.

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represent the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

Pain Clinic Settles Discrimination Case

By Pat Anson, Editor

An Indiana pain management clinic has agreed to pay $30,000 to settle a federal claim that it discriminated against a pain patient by refusing to treat him.

In an unusual twist, the discrimination case filed by the U.S. Justice Department against Pain Management Care of South Bend was not based on the man’s rights as a pain patient – but because of his HIV status. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is intended to protect all people from being discriminated against because of physical or mental disability.

According to the Justice Department, the patient was referred to Pain Management Care (PMC) in November, 2014 after the closure of another pain clinic where he had been treated. The patient sought bi-monthly cortisone injections, which he had been receiving for pain management from his previous doctor.

After sending the results of an MRI exam and other medical records to PMC, the patient received a voicemail message from a clinic employee stating that Dr. Joseph Glazier would not treat him “due to the risks involved with needles and blood due to (his) condition of being HIV positive.”    

The patient asked PMC to change its position but was still refused treatment. He was not able to find another pain management doctor willing to treat him until several months later.

“PMC’s discriminatory denial caused (the patient) to endure six months without needed pain management care and to experience emotional distress,” federal prosecutors said.

The case against PMC was filed on April 7th and quickly settled out-of-court, with Dr. Glazier agreeing to pay the patient $20,000 and a $10,000 civil penalty. PMC must also develop a non-discrimination policy, provide ADA training to its staff, and submit annual reports to the government. The consent decree still needs a judge’s approval.

PMC’s website now contains this notice: “Pain Management Care, P.C., does not discriminate on the basis of disability, including HIV. All individuals, including persons with HIV, have an equal opportunity to treatment from Pain Management Care, P.C.”

“The Justice Department is committed to eradicating discrimination resulting from the unfounded fear and dangerous stereotype that someone with HIV would pose a threat to a medical provider,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.  “Discrimination by those in the medical profession breaks a trust critical to ensuring access to appropriate treatment for all.”

This settlement is part of the department’s Barrier-Free Health Care Initiative, a partnership of the Civil Rights Division and U.S. Attorney’s Offices to target enforcement efforts on access to healthcare for individuals with disabilities. 

The Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law by President H. W. Bush in 1990. It is intended to protect against discrimination based on “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.”

For more information on the obligations of healthcare providers under the ADA, you can call the Justice Department’s toll-free hotline at 800-514-0301. ADA complaints may be filed by email to ada.complaint@usdoj.gov or by clicking here.