On 10/14/2020, This question was posed to MGMA regarding Translation Services.
I’m aware of the requirement to provide translation services for patients in compliance with ADA Title III, but I would like to know definitively whether translation apps such as Google Translate can meet the requirement in some scenarios, or if we must continue to use certified healthcare interpreters. Can anyone point me in the right direction for either written guidance or an official opinion on this?
Matt Devino, Associate Director, Government Affairs MGMA, Washington DC, responds.
Thanks for posting this question. For people who are deaf or have a hearing disability, federal law requires providing a “qualified” interpreter. For the written guidance, please take a look at the Americans with Disabilities Act regulations at 28 CFR 36.303; 36.104 and Section 1557 regulations at 45 CFR 92.102. These regulations do not require that interpretation services be certified; instead, the legal standard is intended to be more flexible. While this offers greater latitude for group practices to select appropriate services, what “qualified” actually entails may be hazy in some cases.
Applicable regulations state that qualified “means an interpreter who, via a video remote interpreting (VRI) service or an on-site appearance, is able to interpret effectively, accurately, and impartially, both receptively and expressively, using any necessary specialized vocabulary.” Remote interpretation services are permitted, including “videotext displays,” so long as they are qualified. See 45 CFR 92.102(a)(1)(i) and this ADA guidance for more information. There is no exhaustive list of what types of interpretation services meet this standard, which can make applying it difficult in practice.
A follow up question was posed on 10/15/2020
Thank you both for your inputs and references as well as the clarification that the ADA requirements are for the deaf or those with hearing disabilities.
Your responses, however, makes me wonder about another requirement, if in fact it is one, for those who do not speak English. Not speaking nor understanding English is obviously not a disability, but everyone I have consulted tells me we are “required” to provide translators for those who don’t speak English and I’m now wondering if it’s a requirement or a courtesy? And if it’s a requirement, I would love to know the references for these too if you know them…or if someone else does. Is it perhaps a requirement by CMS or our other payers? Either way, thank you for your initial response and I would sincerely like to learn more about what options are available to deal with non-English speaking patients too. Are these candidates for Google Translate or some other widely used app…?
Matt Devino, Associate Director, Government Affairs MGMA, Washington DC, again responds.
Thanks for posting this question. For people who are deaf or have a hearing disability, federal law requires providing a “qualified” interpreter. For the written guidance, please take a look at the Americans with Disabilities Act regulations at 28 CFR 36.303; 36.104 and Section 1557 regulations at 45 CFR 92.102. These regulations do not require that interpretation services be certified; instead, the legal standard is intended to be more flexible. While this offers greater latitude for group practices to select appropriate services, what “qualified” actually entails may be hazy in some cases.
Applicable regulations state that qualified “means an interpreter who, via a video remote interpreting (VRI) service or an on-site appearance, is able to interpret effectively, accurately, and impartially, both receptively and expressively, using any necessary specialized vocabulary.” Remote interpretation services are permitted, including “videotext displays,” so long as they are qualified. See 45 CFR 92.102(a)(1)(i) and this ADA guidance for more information. There is no exhaustive list of what types of interpretation services meet this standard, which can make applying it difficult in practice.