Free Our People Film Festival

I got home slightly before midnight, went to work in this morning, and saw the doctor this afternoon. So, you can expect me to be pretty tired. Nonetheless, I have to share how much fun it was participating in the Center for Disability RightsFree Our People Film Festival in Rochester, New York on Tuesday!

In March, my sister, Ginny, and I wrote and produced a seven-minute film, (Crip)perelli Life 2: Home Is Where The Hat Is. The film is a sequel to (Crip)perelli Life, a story about a highschooler with spinal muscular atrophy that joins a Mafia family with similarly disabled people. In the sequel, the highschooler’s service dog racing ring gets busted by the cops, and, without a transition plan in place, he gets stuck living in a nursing home. Members of the Cripperelli family have to bust him out.

Although the movie is satirical, it tackles the important and oft-ignored subject of institutionalization.  In fact, it’s estimated that more than 200,000 non-elderly people currently reside in nursing homes. The Center for Disability Rights sought to bring attention to this topic by sponsoring the Film Festival. Ginny and I came in second place, and had the pleasure of attending the Film Festival in person.

20638011_335773206862999_6188612756733319083_n.jpg
Ginny introducing our production

In addition to watching the winning and third-place videos, the Center for Disability Rights showed a couple of other videos highlighting the terrible consequences of institutionalization. A filmmaker panel concluded the evening, as members of the audience got to ask questions about the films and other disability advocacy projects.

I was privileged to participate in the Film Festival, and encourage anyone reading this blog to check out each of the short films. You will laugh and definitely learn something.  Center for Disability Rights CEO Bruce Darling also committed to promoting a similar Film Festival next year, so keep visiting the website throughout the year if you want more information on how you can participate!

Banishing Bumpiness

Are you a wheelchair user? Do you experience back or neck pain? If so, you’re not alone. Today I listened to a Great Lakes ADA Center webinar on Surface Roughness and Rollability. I was surprised to learn that wheelchair users are twice as likely as the general population to suffer back and neck pain. In fact, 60% of wheelchair users report such soreness. Some of this discomfort may be attributed to vibrations caused by rolling over uneven pathways.

Uneven pathways are bad all around. Presenter Jon Pearlman shared that $30 billion is annually spent on medical costs associated with falls. The elderly population is especially susceptible to tripping. Falls also are the most common cause of traumatic brain injuries. If wheelchairs – and especially scooters – go over particularly uneven pathways, people sitting in them may fall out. Bad, bad, bad!

Dr. Pearlman and his team discovered that, regardless of the wheelchair brand/model, vibrations measured in wheelchair seats that are driven over pathways fall either within or above the vibration caution zone delineated by OSHA. So how do we minimize this danger?

Unfortunately, DME companies have not worked to resolve the problem. Studies reveal that wheelchair cushions actually amplify vibrations into the spinal column of the wheelchair user. Suspension systems are not sufficient, either. However, to create an adequate suspension system for the level of vibration typically experienced by a wheelchair user, the wheelchair would likely become unwieldy.

The solution, then, appears to lie in the proper design of pathways themselves. Surprisingly, Dr. Pearlman reports that some paving stones create smoother pathways than poured concrete. The pattern and bevel of the paver stones are determinative of the vibrations wheelchair users will experience. Municipalities, which are typically responsible for creating pedestrian paths, should take heed of Dr. Pearlman’s data when planning new projects.

Interestingly, the US Access Board funded a portion of Dr. Pearlman’s research. My hope, as a cobblestone-hating wheelchair user, is that the Access Board will develop standards requiring minimum smoothness.

Access and Inclusion Awards

Last Tuesday, I attended the annual Mayor’s Advisory Council on Disability‘s Access and Inclusion Awards. (As for this post, better late than never, right?) This ceremony did not occur last year because the Mayor’s Office was considering merging these awards with other diversity award ceremonies. But, thanks to relentless advocacy from Councilmember Paula Haskin, Mayor Hogsett agreed to a 2017 program.

20246382_1703093743318829_3216696674764224122_n.jpg

The ceremony began with a few words from the Mayor. His speech was geared toward empowerment and appreciation for the 27 years of continuing advocacy people with disabilities have made. His referring to a person in a wheelchair as “wheelchair-bound” was a minor blunder. For those who are unaware, “wheelchair-bound” is a disfavored phrase by many who use wheelchairs. We see wheelchairs not as something we are stuck in, but rather as tools of freedom. It was a teachable moment.

20369008_1703536526607884_1409083705076763274_o.jpg

Awards were received by the following individuals:

  • Scott Wise, owner of Scotty’s Brewhouse, won the award for being an employer offering opportunities to people with disabilities.
  • Indy Pride won for being a community organization going above and beyond to include individuals with disabilities in its programming.
  • Wade Wingler, of Easter Seals Crossroads, won the lifetime achievement award in honor of a life of service to individuals with disabilities.

Disability Rights March

Today I attended a disability rights March in Indianapolis sponsored by the Global Accessibility Project. Those who turned out – on a hot day that threatened thunderstorms – both with and without disabilities, are committed to promoting disability rights. A guy from Iowa even stopped by and joined us for a while, sharing that he stood in solidarity with our frustrations about the lack of inclusion of people with disabilities in the broader social justice landscape.

20228370_297628520710894_5963401881975472821_n.jpg
Photo credit: Global Accessibility Project

As we marched around Indiana’s Statehouse and Government Center, numerous accessibility fails were witnessed:

  • Our permit was for gathering on the south lawn of the Statehouse. It’s impossible to get there without climbing stairs.
  • To enter the Statehouse, those who cannot climb stairs are required to enter in the back, via the basement.
  • Accessible parking is nowhere near the accessible entrances of either building.
  • Flower planters are placed about one foot from the edge of the curb where those using accessible parking are required to parallel park. This makes it impossible for those using the parking spaces to deploy ramps or lifts.
  • One ramp was ridiculously steep, clearly outside Access Board requirements.
  • Many ramps were in poor repair, with potholes at the edges.
  • One ramp was completely inaccessible, as construction materials covered it. There was no opportunity to detour, as construction cones were dumped in the possible detour pathway.

Think that’s a lot of problems? We walked less than two blocks! Perhaps some of our frustration can now be understood…

Review: An American Sickness

You know by now that I love reading and sharing information that I learn from a good book. Elisabeth Rosenthal‘s An American Sickness: How Healthcare Became Big Business and How You Can Take It Back is truly one of the most interesting books I’ve read all year! Especially now, as Senators discuss repealing and/or amending the Affordable Care Act, read this book!!!

410kNvpsHYL._SX327_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Rosenthal, a former journalist and physician, begins by thoroughly describing how the medical-industrial complex takes advantage of patients and legal loopholes. She devotes a chapter each to the ills of insurers, hospitals, physicians, pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies, ancillary service providers, billing and coding contractors, medical researchers, conglomerations, and patient complacency. The facts presented are fascinating: for example, “[t]he average hospital cost per day in the United States was $4,300 in 2013,” more than triple “the cost in Australia and about ten times the cost in Spain”!

The concept that irked me the most is “venture philanthropy.” Of it, Rosenthal writes:

The problem is that many charitable foundations no longer see themselves as funders of research for knowledge propelled by donor dollars to cure a disease, but instead as inventors in new treatments.

When insulin was developed in the 1920s, researchers did not stand by patent protection to reap income, but instead shared their knowledge with the community. When the March of Dimes helped fund vaccination research, it did not bill children or their families for inoculation. Now, medical charities are investing money in research. Because any successful discovery will likely result in royalties to the charity shareholder, the charity has no financial incentive to advocate for the cost of that discovery to be accessible to those served by the charity. Talk about conflict of interest!

Rosenthal devotes the second portion of the book to offering both systemic reform, as well as individualized, methods to save money on medical treatment. Again, this section was disturbing, given that neither Republicans nor Democrats are proposing many of the reforms proposed by Rosenthal. Although concepts like tort reform have been initiated in states like Indiana, contemporary federal reform efforts appear completely off the mark.

Last, but most certainly not least, the end of the book contains multiple appendices patients can use to arm themselves in price negotiation. Although options for comparison shopping for medical procedures are limited, Rosenthal provides links to those options that are available. She also includes template letters patients can use when objecting to healthcare charges.

This book contains good stuff, all around. I’ve been bugging my coworkers about it all week long, eager to share stories about how we are all getting ripped off. This book, however, is not a ripoff, but a real gem for the bookshelf!

Review: Life, Liberty & the Defense of Dignity

Leon Kass Life, Liberty & the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics is an oldie, but a goodie. The premier bioethicist explains the philosophy of dignity, and describes how various technological advances, including cloning and progress toward immortality, threaten dignity and humanity itself.

51QQBHfwuYL._SX329_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

The book is heavy stuff. In addition to the gravity of the subject matter, Kass dives into Kantian ethics, etymology, and the philosophy of science. Perhaps this will deter the casual reader, but those interested in the subject should appreciate the thorough eloquence of the author.

The main challenges Kass addresses include: the origins of procreation, genetic therapy, cloning, the sale of organs, the so-called “right to die,” the quest for immortality, and the nature of biology. Throughout, Kass argues in favor of restraint and respect for human nature.

I was particularly intrigued by those  passages of the book in which Kass opines on the nature of humanity itself, writing that the corporeal nature of our situation should not be discounted.

The point is crucial, and stands apart from the text that teaches that: everything high about human life – thinking, judging, loving, willing, acting – depends absolutely on everything low – metabolism, digestion, respiration, circulation, excretion. In the case of human beings, “divinity” needs blood – or “mere” life – to sustain itself. And because of what it holds up, human blood – that is, human life – deserves special respect, beyond that which is owed to life as such; the low ceases to be the low.

If the above quote gets you thinking, I highly recommend reading the remainder of Kass’ book! Indeed, given the attention on healthcare as of late, Kass’ theories are all the more timely and deserving of contemplation.

Independent Living, Hoosier Style

I’ve spent the last two days in a training program for the Indiana Statewide Council on Independent Living  Council (INSILC). We had the pleasure of being trained Paula McElwee, our technical assistance coordinator from Independent Living Research Utilization (ILRU), and Kimberly Tissot from able South Carolina. The information conveyed by Paula and Kimberly was well-received by INSILC members and prospective members, myself included.

What I did find concerning, however, was confirmation from individuals across the state that many people – both with and without disabilities – are still unfamiliar the philosophy of independent living. I want to devote this post to spreading the word. Independent living is essential, especially as fears loom about political plans for re-institutionalization.

Independent living is generally considered the brainchild of Ed Roberts. Roberts was paralyzed from polio, and used a respirator and an iron lung for respiratory support. Nonetheless, he knew that he had much to contribute, and applied for services from vocational rehabilitation (VR). VR decided that he was too disabled and turned him away without assistance, effectually deeming him unemployable. Roberts pressed on, undeterred, and was admitted to Berkeley. There, Roberts lived in the campus clinic, as opposed to a dormitory, and his brother provided personal care assistance.

As more students with physical disabilities gained admission to Berkeley and forged friendships with Roberts, their band became known as the Rolling Quads. They demanded more equal treatment from Berkeley, including the removal of environmental barriers and the provision of personal care services. Yes, their goal was to live independently. Although they could not “independently” complete the physical tasks of activities of daily living, their independence came through the direction of how those activities were completed. Independence is about choice.

(By the way, in case you were wondering, after Roberts completed his education, he was appointed by the Governor as VR Director. Mwahahahahaha!)

With prompting from those in the disability community, the federal government began funding what are known as centers for independent living (CILs). Today, the funding scheme is fairly complex, but CILs are tasked with providing core services for people with disabilities in their service areas:

  • Information and referral. Staff can refer clients to local community resources such as transportation, accessible and affordable housing options, sources for durable medical equipment, etc.
  • Advocacy. Staff can help clients learn methods for self-advocacy, such as best practices for asking an employer for reasonable accommodations. Staff may also engage in systems advocacy, informing policymakers about the ways in which proposed legislation may affect people with disabilities.
  • Independent living skills. Staff can provide instruction on things like personal care assistance, accessible transportation options, adaptive sports, etc. Obviously, the skills imparted to clients will depend on each client’s individualized needs.
  • Peer counseling. Since many CIL staff have disabilities themselves, they can provide clients with insights about their own experiences. Learning from an experienced peer can demonstrate that independent living, holding a job, etc., is possible, regardless of what the client has heard elsewhere.
  • Transition. Staff can help clients transitioning from high school to higher education or the workforce. Important tips, such as getting a benefits analysis and exploring Medicaid buy-in options, can be very helpful to those transitioning into adulthood.

Important stuff, no doubt. Although the day-to-day operations of the CILs are largely autonomous, the state independent living council in each state is responsible for drafting a state plan for independent living. This plan, which incorporates feedback from people with disabilities, CILs, and community partners, directs the overall operation of independent living within the state. The drafting and monitoring of this plan are primary responsibilities for councils, including INSILC.

Crucially, INSILC is the only gubernatorially-appointed board in Indiana that contains a majority of people with disabilities as voting members, with a consistent mission of promoting independent living within the state. They are, most certainly, a necessary voice. The past two days’ training sessions were great; it makes me happy to see INSILC’s commitment to continue striving to represent the interests of peers with disabilities.