Podcasts about civil rights ocr

It is widely known that schools have instituted equity-focused policies, teacher training, and curriculum. Critics wonder whether this focus on equity is illegal and unconstitutional.Deemar v. District 65 (Evanston/Skokie) involves Dr. Stacy Deemar, a drama teacher in Evanston/Skokie School District 65 in Illinois. She has challenged the District’s allegedly racially charged environment and practice of segregating students and staff. In January 2021, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) determined that the District violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. But soon after President Biden took office, OCR withdrew that finding without explanation. Dr. Deemar filed a federal lawsuit and, in April 2025, submitted a new complaint to OCR.Featuring:Kimberly Hermann, Executive Director, Southeastern Legal Foundation

A lot of ground is covered during this informational episode of The Law and Education Podcast to bring listeners up to speed with the changes to Title IX, Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI), and federal funding under the current administration. It is also Sexual Assault Awareness Month, and our conversation touches on the role of Title IX in relation to this. Next, we discuss the recent announcements from the Department of Education and the process that lawmakers are required to follow in order to make changes to the 2020 Title IX regulations. We unpack how the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is enforcing Title IX today, and how the Department of Education's recent order is affecting our institutions. Also included in this episode is a look at the Dear Colleague Letter and Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) investigation. It has been an unprecedented academic year, and ICS aims to keep everyone up to speed as best as possible. Join us for a broad overview of some key points affecting education today.  Key Points From This Episode: ICS's first Title IX Mental Health and School Safety Symposium. The training plan that ICS is finishing up for summer going into fall. Blueprints for different policies that ICS has made available.  What was covered in Episode 72: the initial impact of the current administration. Sexual Assault Awareness Month and Title IX.  Announcements from the Department of Education with respect to special needs funding, student loans, and more.  The process that must be followed for any changes to be made to the 2020 Title IX regulations. How OCR is enforcing Title IX today. The Department of Education's order that K-12 districts certify that they are ending any DEI practices as a condition for receiving federal money.  The Dear Colleague Letter and investigation into FERPA under California statute related to transgender parent notification.  What the most recent official freeze entails: 790 million in federal funding at North Western University.  How ICS is aiming to keep listeners up to speed with the many changes coming from the current administration. Links Mentioned in Today's Episode: Episode 72 Tuesday Takeaways Sexual Assault Awareness Month: Supporting Title IX Work Through Education and Community ICS Lawyer Higher Ed Community Access K-12 Community Access Higher Ed Virtual Certified IX Training K-12 Virtual Certified Title IX Training ICS Blog Courtney Bullard on X  Learn about Becoming a Community Partner

April 17, 2025 ~ Federal workforce cuts within the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) have significantly impacted the ability of the department to address complaints from students with disabilities and families facing discrimination. Chalkbeat reporter Hannah Dellinger talks with Lloyd and Jamie about families being left without resolution and students without necessary support.

One of the benefits of hosting a podcast in our field of civil rights and special education is that we can do quick follow-ups to incidents as they happen. If you follow us on social media, you know we cover many topics there, and we utilize the podcast for more in-depth conversations about relevant happenings in our field. One such recent event is the "Dear Colleague" letter of 2/14/25 sent out by the US Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR). It gives guidance clarifying how they will interpret federal laws about discrimination for educational institutions that receive federal funding. Let's take a closer look in today's episode. Show Highlights:Recent executive orders and memorandumsThe weaponization of DEIUnderstanding the “Dear Colleague” letterA breakdown of the January 21 Executive Order and its impactThoughts on civil rights, discrimination, and DEIWhat school districts need to understandAttempts to spread fear and chaosThere is power in the voice of the people! Stand up!Links/Resources:Contact us on social media or through our website for more information on the IEP Learning Center: www.inclusiveeducationproject.org Thank you for listening!Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive every new episode delivered straight to your podcast player every Tuesday.If you enjoyed this episode and believe in our message, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher Radio, or Google Play. It helps other listeners find this show.Be sure to connect with us and reach out with any questions/concerns!FacebookInstagram–We are doing videos on Instagram, so connect with us here and send us your questions!TwitterIEP websiteEmail us: admin@iepcalifornia.org

The Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has made risk analysis a top priority in its enforcement of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliance. Dawn Morgenstern, Senior Director of Consulting Services and Chief Privacy Officer, Clearwater, speaks with Betsy Hodge, Partner, Akerman LLP, about OCR's risk analysis enforcement initiative. They discuss what's driving the initiative, key enforcement actions, and steps health care organizations can take to ensure they meet regulatory requirements regarding risk analysis. From AHLA's Health Information and Technology Practice Group. Sponsored by Clearwater.AHLA's Health Law Daily Podcast Is Here! AHLA's popular Health Law Daily email newsletter is now a daily podcast, exclusively for AHLA Premium members. Get all your health law news from the major media outlets on this new podcast! To subscribe and add this private podcast feed to your podcast app, go to americanhealthlaw.org/dailypodcast.

Welcome solo and group practice owners! We are Liath Dalton and Evan Dumas, your co-hosts of Group Practice Tech. In our latest episode, we discuss the implications of the Section 1557 final rule on nondiscrimination for mental health practices.  We cover: The Section 1557 final rule, what it means, and when it takes effect How the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) disseminated this information Ways in which AI can be discriminatory What to consider when utilizing AI with patient care support tools as a mental health provider Listen here: https://personcenteredtech.com/group/podcast/ For more, visit our website. Resources The OCR/HHS "Dear Colleague Letter": Re: Ensuring Nondiscrimination Through the Use of Artificial Intelligence and Other Emerging Technologies OCR Notice: Ensuring Nondiscrimination in the Use of AI is Good Medicine HHS: HHS Artificial Intelligence Strategic Plan HHS: Artificial Intelligence Strategic Plan -- Slide Summary Federal Register: Section 1557 Final Rule PCT Resources Relevant on-demand, legal-ethical CE training: The Evolving Legal-Ethical Standard of Care for the Clinical Use of Artificial Intelligence in Mental Health Gain insights into the benefits and challenges of incorporating AI technologies into their practice, understand the clinical implications, and learn how to navigate legal and ethical guidelines while maintaining compliance with HIPAA regulations. PCT's Comprehensive HIPAA Security Compliance Program (discounted) bundles: For Group Practices For Solo Practitioners PCT's HIPAA Risk Analysis & Risk Mitigation Planning service for mental health group practices -- care for your practice using our supportive, shame-free risk analysis and mitigation planning service. You'll have your Risk Analysis done within 2 hours, performed by a PCT consultant, using a tool built specifically for mental health group practice, and a mitigation checklist to help you reduce your risks. Group Practice Care Premium weekly (live & recorded) direct support & consultation service, Group Practice Office Hours -- including monthly session with therapist attorney Eric Ström, JD PhD LMHC + assignable staff HIPAA Security Awareness: Bring Your Own Device training + access to Device Security Center with step-by-step device-specific tutorials & registration forms for securing and documenting all personally owned & practice-provided devices (for *all* team members at no per-person cost) + assignable staff HIPAA Security Awareness: Remote Workspaces training for all team members + access to Remote Workspace Center with step-by-step tutorials & registration forms for securing and documenting Remote Workspaces (for *all* team members at no per-person cost) + more

Candice Jackson served in the Trump administration as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic Operations and Outreach in the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S. Department of Education, and the Office's Acting Assistant Secretary from April 2017 to July 2018. She discusses the politics of campus sexual assault, the issue of racially disparate disciplinary action, and the invasion of the classroom by "gender theory." Sponsors: & Free Book Mentioned: Guest's Twitter: @CEJacksonLaw

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) vigilantly enforces federal civil rights laws in schools and other recipients of Department of Education federal funding throughout the nation-resolving case investigations, publishing policy resources, and providing school and community technical assistance. In a recent report, OCR reported the highest volume of civil rights complaints in its history, receiving 19,201 complaints in 2023. And it shows no signs of slowing. Already in 2024, OCR has seen a 26% increase in complaints compared to this time last year. Rising partisan tensions, the Israel-Hamas war, and attacks on LGBTQ+ rights are some of the issues rising to the forefront--particularly in colleges and universities. Along with increasing caseloads, there have been persistent calls for increased funding for OCR from more than 90 civil rights groups. What work is being done to ensure all students have equal access to education?rnrnCatherine E. Lhamon is the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education. She was nominated by President Barack Obama in June 2013, and was unanimously confirmed by Senate in August 2013. Until January 2021, she chaired the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, to which President Obama appointed her in 2016, and served as Legal Affairs Secretary to California Governor Gavin Newsom.

Project 2025. - Section: Department of Health and Human Services  Who wrote this (from wikipedia) Written by: Roger Thomas Severino (born 1974/1975)[1] is an American attorney who served as the director of the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) at the United States Department of Health and Human Services from 2017 to 2021. He is currently a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a contributor on health policy, including abortion, to Project 2025.[2] In March 2017, President Donald Trump appointed Severino as Director of the Office for Civil Rights at the United States Department of Health and Human Services.[8][9][10] He left the position on January 15, 2021.[11] --- Goal #1: Protecting Life, Conscience, and Bodily Integrity. The Secretary should pursue a robust agenda to protect the fundamental right to life, protect conscience rights, and uphold bodily integrity rooted in biological realities, not ideology. From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care. A robust respect for the sacred rights of conscience, both at HHS and among governments and institutions funded by it, increases choices for patients and program beneficiaries and furthers pluralism and tolerance. The Secretary must protect Americans' civil rights by ensuring that HHS programs and activities follow the letter and spirit of religious freedom and conscience-protection laws. Radical actors inside and outside government are promoting harmful identity politics that replaces biological sex with subjective notions of “gender identity” and bases a person's worth on his or her race, sex, or other identities. This destructive dogma, under the guise of “equity,” threatens American's fundamental liberties as well as the health and well-being of children and adults alike. The next Secretary must ensure that HHS programs protect children's minds and bodies and that HHS programs respect parents From Section - OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY (EERE) Who wrote this (from wikipedia) Bernard L. McNamee (born 1967) is a government official who served as Commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from 2018 to 2020.[2] McNamee was confirmed to the position by the United States Senate on December 6, 2018. He previously served in various state and federal legal and policy positions and practiced energy law in the private sector. --- Under the Biden Administration, EERE's mission is “to accelerate the research, development, demonstration, and deployment of technologies and solutions to equitably transition America to netzero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions economy-wide by no later than 2050” and “ensure [that] the clean energy economy benefits all Americans. Needed Reforms End the focus on climate change and green subsidies. Under the Biden Administration, EERE is a conduit for taxpayer dollars to fund progressive policies, including decarbonization of the economy and renewable resources. EERE has focused on reducing carbon dioxide emissions to the exclusion of other statutorily defined requirements such as energy security and cost. For example, EERE's five programmatic priorities during the Biden Administration are all focused on decarbonization of the electricity sector, the industrial sector, transportation, buildings, and the agricultural sector. Eliminate energy efficiency standards for appliances. Pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 as amended, the agency is required to set and periodically tighten energy and/or water efficiency standards for nearly all kinds of commercial and household appliances, including air conditioners, furnaces, water heaters, stoves, clothes washers and dryers, refrigerators, dishwashers, light bulbs, and showerheads. Current law and regulations reduce consumer choice, drive up costs for consumer appliances, and emphasize energy efficiency to the exclusion of other important factors such as cycle time and reparability. New Policies Eliminate EERE. The next Administration should work with Congress to eliminate all of DOE's applied energy programs, including those in EERE (with the possible exception of those that are related to basic science for new energy technology). Taxpayer dollars should not be used to subsidize preferred businesses and energy resources, thereby distorting the market and undermining energy reliability. Reduce EERE funding. If EERE cannot be eliminated, then the Administration should engage with Congress and the House and Senate Appropriations Committees on EERE's budget.  Eliminate energy efficiency standards for appliances. The next Administration should work with Congress to modify or repeal the law mandating energy efficiency standards. Before (or in lieu of ) repealing the law, there are steps the agency can take to refocus on the consumer by giving full force to the provisions already in the law that serve to limit regulatory overreach and protect against excessively stringent standards.   

Healthcare marketers were thrown for a loop again a couple of weeks ago when the final ruling was released for the lawsuit by the American Hospital Association (AHA) against the Office of Civil Rights (OCR). The ruling threw out a key part of the 2022 bulletin but left marketers confused about what, if anything, they should do to modify their marketing analytics setups. Listen in to learn: ●        The details of the AHA and OCR lawsuit and specifics of the ruling ●        How state privacy laws may change based on this ruling ●        FTC and civil lawsuit implications ●        Future privacy considerations, such as AI ●        Our POV of a brand's privacy promise If you're struggling to answer questions to your leadership about how and what should change with your analytics setup, this is a must-listen-to podcast! Connect with Jenny: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jennybristow/   Connect with Mark: https://www.linkedin.com/in/markbrandes/

An attorney who served as the director of the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) at the United States Department of Health and Human Services from 2017 to 2021 under President Donald Trump, Roger Severino, makes his debut with Sid to discuss the guilty verdict in the Donald Trump hush money trial. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, host Bidemi Ologunde discussed the recent data breach at Change Healthcare. The breach was facilitated by the absence of multi-factor authentication (MFA) on their Citrix portal, allowing threat actors to easily access and compromise the system. The attack, attributed to the ALPHV/BlackCat ransomware group, resulted in significant operational disruptions and financial losses estimated at $872 million​.The breach is particularly concerning because medical records, unlike financial information, do not have a shelf life and remain valuable indefinitely. This makes healthcare data a prime target for cybercriminals​​. The aftermath of the breach has seen a considerable impact on the cash flow of medical providers due to disruptions in payment processing and other critical services​.In response to the breach, government agencies like the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have taken steps to mitigate the impact. CMS, for instance, has allowed states to make interim Medicaid payments to affected providers​​, and OCR is actively investigating the incident and reminding covered entities of their breach notification obligations under HIPAA​.Lawmakers have also been engaged, with discussions around the breach occurring in senate hearings and the deployment of class-action lawsuits against UnitedHealth Group, accusing it of inadequate cybersecurity measures that led to the breach​.Support the Show.

In this two-part Triage series, Gina Bertolini, Sarah Carlins, and Jianne McDonald analyze two recent HHS initiatives that address cybersecurity risks to hospitals and health systems nationwide. Cybersecurity events involving our nation's health care providers have precipitously risen in the past five years. The Department of Health and Human Services' Office for Civil Rights (OCR) reports a nearly 300% increase in large data breaches that involve ransomware reported to OCR from 2018 to 2022. Interoperability remains a major government priority, and as remote care models continue to proliferate and the need intensifies for big data to feed increasingly complex technologies, risks to health care providers will continue to abound.   In part two, Gina Bertolini and Sarah Carlins discuss HHS's “Healthcare Sector Cybersecurity” report, which outlines HHS's strategy for securing the digital infrastructure of our nation's health care system. HHS's strategy includes increased funding for support and enforcement of HIPAA's Security Rule and the implementation of voluntary Cybersecurity Performance Goals, and HHS projects changes to HIPAA's Security Rule coming in the Spring of 2024.

In this two-part Triage series, Gina Bertolini, Sarah Carlins, and Jianne McDonald analyze two recent HHS initiatives that address cybersecurity risks to hospitals and health systems nationwide. Cybersecurity events involving our nation's health care providers have precipitously risen in the past five years. The Department of Health and Human Services' Office for Civil Rights (OCR) reports a nearly 300% increase in large data breaches that involve ransomware reported to OCR from 2018 to 2022. Interoperability remains a major government priority, and as remote care models continue to proliferate and the need intensifies for big data to feed increasingly complex technologies, risks to health care providers will continue to abound.   In part one of this series, Sarah Carlins and Jianne McDonald discuss recent OCR recommendations for healthcare providers and patients on cybersecurity measures when providing and receiving care via telehealth. They also discuss the federal government's view that effective communication regarding the privacy and security of electronic health information is an important component of quality care in the telehealth setting. 

Welcome solo and group practice owners! We are Liath Dalton and Evan Dumas, your co-hosts of Group Practice Tech. In our latest episode, we summarize what group practice owners should know about the Office of Civil Rights Annual Reports to Congress and explain how understanding them can inform risk management. We discuss the compliance report from the Office of Civil Rights (OCR); how complaints filed were resolved; compliance reviews vs. audits; reframing the (very common) fear of HIPAA complaints; the unsecured PHI report from the OCR; risk management for avoiding large breaches; the importance of reporting breaches; and the primary sources of breaches and ways to minimize them. Listen here: https://personcenteredtech.com/group/podcast/ For more, visit our website. References Annual Report to Congress on Breaches of Unsecured Protected Health Information Annual Report to Congress on HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification Rule Compliance PCT Resources Group Practice Care Premium weekly (live & recorded) direct support & consultation service, Group Practice Office Hours + assignable staff HIPAA Security Awareness: Bring Your Own Device training + access to Device Security Center with step-by-step device-specific tutorials & registration forms for securing and documenting all personally owned & practice-provided devices (for *all* team members at no per-person cost) + assignable staff HIPAA Security Awareness: Remote Workspaces training for all team members + access to Remote Workspace Center with step-by-step tutorials & registration forms for securing and documenting Remote Workspaces (for *all* team members at no per-person cost) + more HIPAA Risk Analysis & Risk Mitigation Planning service for mental health group practices -- care for your practice using our supportive, shame-free risk analysis and mitigation planning service. You'll have your Risk Analysis done within 2 hours, performed by a PCT consultant, using a tool built specifically for mental health group practice, and a mitigation checklist to help you reduce your risks. PCT's Group Practice PCT Way HIPAA Compliance Manual & Materials -- comprehensive customizable HIPAA Security Policies & Procedure and materials templates specifically for mental health group practices. with a detailed step-by-step project plan and guided instructions for adopting & implementing efficiently **includes policy prohibition on use of BCC and CC; workforce forwarding emails from their practice email account to personal email account; data entry checking/not using autofill suggestions for recipients -- the P&P components that address the email gone awry situations we discussed in the podcast episode Policies & Procedures include: Customizable templates that address each of the HIPAA Security Rule Standards. Ready for plug-and-play real practice application. Computing Devices and Electronic Media Technical Security Policy Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) Policy Communications Security Policy Information Systems Secure Use Policy Risk Management Policy Contingency Planning Policy Device and Document Transport and Storage Policy Device and Document Disposal Policy Security Training and Awareness Policy Passwords and Other Digital Authentication Policy Software and Hardware Selection Policy Security Incident Response and Breach Notification Policy Security Onboarding and Exit Policy Sanction Policy Policy Release of Information Security Policy Remote Access Policy Data Backup Policy Facility/Office Access and Physical Security Policy Facility Network Security Policy Computing Device Acceptable Use Policy Business Associate Policy Access Log Review Policy Forms & Logs include: Workforce Security Policies Agreement Security Incident Report PHI Access Determination Password Policy Compliance BYOD Registration & Termination Data Backup & Confirmation Access Log Review Key & Access Code Issue and Loss Third-Party Service Vendors Building Security Plan Security Schedule Equipment Security Check Computing System Access Granting & Revocation Training Completion Mini Risk Analysis Security Incident Response Security Reminder Practice Equipment Catalog + Workforce Security Manual & Leadership Security Manual -- the role-based practical application oriented distillation of the formal Policies & Procedures + 2 complimentary seats of the Security Officer Endorsement Training Program (1 for Security Officer; 1 for Deputy (or future Deputy) Security Officer.

More information, transcripts, and resources available at: https://section504at50.org/episodes/paul-grossman/ For over 30 years, Paul Grossman served as the Chief Regional Attorney for the US Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in San Francisco. In Washington, D.C. and San Francisco, Paul has worked on every type of education discrimination matter under Title VI, Title IX, Section 504, and the ADA, including securing equal access and academic accommodations for students with disabilities in higher education. For nearly 20 years, Paul also had lead responsibility for internal disability law training for OCR and continues to provide training services for OCR. In this episode, Paul talks about Disability law and its development, the Disability Rights Movement and the 504 occupation of the San Francisco Federal Building at the United Nations Plaza, and closes with future challenges in the disability rights field.

Welcome solo and group practice owners! We are Liath Dalton and Evan Dumas, your co-hosts of Group Practice Tech. In our latest episode, we're sharing why risk analysis is essential for mental health providers, inspired by a recent webinar from the Office of Civil Rights (OCR).  We discuss the core mandate of the HIPAA Security Rule; how risk analysis is essential to safeguarding PHI; conceptualizing the lifecycle of PHI in your practice; how often to do a risk analysis; written policy vs. implemented policy; security measures degrading over time; and HIPAA as a useful tool for client care. Listen here: https://personcenteredtech.com/group/podcast/ For more, visit our website. PCT Resources PCT's HIPAA Risk Analysis & Risk Mitigation Planning service for mental health group practices -- care for your practice using our supportive, shame-free risk analysis and mitigation planning service. You'll have your Risk Analysis done within 2 hours, performed by a PCT consultant, using a tool built specifically for mental health group practice, and a mitigation checklist to help you reduce your risks. Will identify both your 'in-practice' risks and your 'formal compliance' (what required written P&Ps are implemented) needs, while also documenting all the good things your practice is already doing!   PCT's Group Practice PCT Way HIPAA Compliance Manual & Materials -- comprehensive customizable HIPAA Security Policies & Procedure and materials templates specifically for mental health group practices. with a detailed step-by-step project plan and guided instructions for adopting & implementing efficiently      Policies & Procedures include: Customizable templates that address each of the HIPAA Security Rule Standards. Ready for plug-and-play real practice application.   Computing Devices and Electronic Media Technical Security Policy Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) Policy Communications Security Policy Information Systems Secure Use Policy Risk Management Policy Contingency Planning Policy Device and Document Transport and Storage Policy Device and Document Disposal Policy Security Training and Awareness Policy Passwords and Other Digital Authentication Policy Software and Hardware Selection Policy Security Incident Response and Breach Notification Policy Security Onboarding and Exit Policy Sanction Policy Policy Release of Information Security Policy Remote Access Policy Data Backup Policy Facility/Office Access and Physical Security Policy Facility Network Security Policy Computing Device Acceptable Use Policy Business Associate Policy Access Log Review Policy   Forms & Logs include: Workforce Security Policies Agreement Security Incident Report PHI Access Determination Password Policy Compliance BYOD Registration & Termination Data Backup & Confirmation Access Log Review Key & Access Code Issue and Loss Third-Party Service Vendors Building Security Plan Security Schedule Equipment Security Check Computing System Access Granting & Revocation Training Completion Mini Risk Analysis Security Incident Response Security Reminder Practice Equipment Catalog   + Workforce Security Manual & Leadership Security Manual -- the role-based practical application oriented distillation of the formal Policies & Procedures + 2 complimentary seats of the Security Officer Endorsement Training Program (1 for Security Officer; 1 for Deputy (or future Deputy) Security Officer.   Group Practice Care Premium for weekly (live & recorded) direct support & consultation service, Group Practice Office Hours + assignable staff HIPAA Security Awareness: Bring Your Own Device training + access to Device Security Center with step-by-step device-specific tutorials & registration forms for securing documenting personal & practice-provided devices (for *all* team members at no per-person cost) +  assignable staff HIPAA Security Awareness: Remote Workspaces training for all team members + access to Remote Workspace Center with step-by-step tutorials & registration forms for securing documenting Remote Workspaces(for *all* team members at no per-person cost) + more

In the episode, Erin Hart and Christy Hall discuss the legal protections for transgender students and their families under federal and state law The Minnesota Human Rights Act ensures rights for transgender students and their families. If you have experienced discrimination, you can report it to the Minnesota Department of Human Rights here: https://mn.gov/mdhr/intake/consultationinquiryform/ Gender Justice has won cases against school districts who violated transgender students' rights, guaranteeing access to facilities and ending discrimination. Transgender student rights face challenges due to political debates, sometimes leading to non-compliance and potential bullying. Christy highlights protections under Title IX, a federal law enforced by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the Department of Education. See here for more information on how to file a complaint with OCR. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/howto.html ### Visit the "Gender Justice" Website here and "Unrestrict Minnesota" here. Erin Hart, Communications Director at Gender Justice, is hosting the Gender Justice Brief. The GJB is produced by Gunther Michael Jahnl (IQONEQ Communications Solutions) & Audra Grigus. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/genderjustice/message

Welcome solo and group practice owners! We are Liath Dalton and Evan Dumas, your co-hosts of Group Practice Tech. In our latest episode, we talk about the challenges of utilizing Google Ads in group practice from a HIPAA perspective.  We discuss maintaining steady referrals post-pandemic; guidance from the Office of Civil Rights (OCR); balancing keeping care accessible with ethical marketing; our recommendation for Google Ads support for therapists; normalizing the discomfort of normalcy after years of crisis; using your values to inform your marketing; and finding resources when you need them. Listen here: https://personcenteredtech.com/group/podcast/ For more, visit our website. Resources: Mental Health Group Practice Google Ad specialist, Joe Bavonese PhD at Uncommon Practices OCR/HHS: Guidance: Use of Online Tracking Technologies by HIPAA Covered Entities and Business Associates PCT Resources: PCT training, presented by Joe Bavonese, PhD: Effective and Ethical Marketing for your Therapy Practice Episode 313: [HIPAA] Compliance Considerations for Your Practice Website Thriving and Making Comfort Conference Self-Study and Replays including: Navigating Collective Trauma As A Mental Health Professional How To Survive Burnout + Internet Marketing During COVID-19 Legal Considerations For Practice Needs During COVID-19: HIPAA And Marketing, Cross-Jurisdiction Practice PCT's Group Practice Care Premium service with direct support & consultation service, Group Practice Office Hours, for group practice leaders plus: Assignable staff HIPAA Security Awareness: Remote Workspaces training for all team members Access to Remote Workspace Center with step-by-step tutorials & registration forms for securing documenting Remote Workspaces Assignable staff HIPAA Security Awareness: Bring Your Own Device training Access to Device Security Center with step-by-step device-specific tutorials & registration forms for securing documenting personal & practice-provided devices PCT's HIPAA Risk Analysis & Risk Mitigation Planning service for mental health group practices  Care for your practice using our supportive, shame-free risk analysis and mitigation planning service. You'll have your Risk Analysis done within 2 hours, performed by a PCT consultant, using a tool built specifically for mental health group practice, and a mitigation checklist to help you reduce your risks.

Michael sits down and chats with Tim Noonan, Deputy Director for Health Information Privacy, Data and Cybersecurity at HHS' Office for Civil Rights (OCR).  What are some common trends and deficiencies that OCR confronts in their investigations? Why the increase in cyber attacks on business associates and what resources and guidance (spoiler alert: there are plenty) does OCR have available to aid in keeping healthcare entities safe and secure?

Welcome solo and group practice owners! We are Liath Dalton and Evan Dumas, your co-hosts of Group Practice Tech. In our latest episode, we dive deep on the process of HIPAA security risk analysis in a group practice context. We discuss why risk analysis is overwhelming; reframing the way you consider risk analysis; remembering what you are doing right; the recent annual report to Congress from HHS and the Office of Civil Rights (OCR); general requirements for a risk analysis; how PCT approaches risk analysis (in 2 hours!); categories of risk; the tangible benefits of risk analysis in group practice; risk mitigation plans; and approaching risk analysis without burning out. Listen here: https://personcenteredtech.com/group/podcast/ For more, visit our website. Resources PCT's HIPAA Risk Analysis & Risk Mitigation Service for mental health group practices -- have us perform your risk analysis and do all the heavy lifting of this foundational HIPAA requirement   HHS' Guidance on Risk Analysis   HHS Office of Civil Rights emphasized the need for increased compliance with the Risk Analysis requirement in the recently (2/17/2023) released Annual Report to Congress on Breaches of Unsecured Protected Health Information: "Risk Analysis. The Security Rule requires regulated entities to conduct an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI held by the covered entity or business associate. Failures to conduct a risk analysis leave regulated entities vulnerable to breaches of unsecured ePHI as cybersecurity attacks are increasing."

Click here for full text I'm long overdue to post new content to the KPS4Parents blog, podcast, and social media, but it's been a busy school year. The continuing fallout from COVID-related school closures that disrupted the educations of most children, and had even more profound effects on our learners with disabilities, has kept me busy. It's one of these COVID-related cases that brings me back to the blog and podcast today, because after over two years of waiting for a complaint investigation to get done that was only supposed to take 180 days, the United States Department of Education (USDOE), through its Office for Civil Rights (OCR), finally concluded an investigation of Oxnard Union High School District (OUHSD) and how it handled its students with disabilities during COVID-related school closures. To say I and the student's family now feel vindicated is an understatement. You can read OCR's findings and the resolution agreement that OUHSD entered into with OCR to resolve its violations by clicking here. I'm not going to belabor every little thing in those documents because they speak for themselves and you can read them at your own convenience, but I will summarize them, here. In short, not only did OCR find that the District violated my client's civil rights, it likely violated the rights of its other students with special needs by refusing, as policy, to provide any in-person disability-related supports and services during campus closures, even if they were necessary in order for the student to access learning. At the beginning of the pandemic, when the schools were first closed down here in California, the Governor's office understood immediately that our special needs students were going to be disproportionately affected by the school closures. With the new budget during the summer of 2020, the Governor committed $1B to cover compensatory education costs for students with disabilities who lost educational benefits during the school closures because they couldn't access the disability-related supports they needed in order to learn. Back in the Spring of 2020, right after the pandemic hit and the schools shut down, both the Governor and USDOE reminded the public education system that its legal obligations to its students with special needs had not changed in spite of the pandemic and that local education agencies should do everything possible to continue implementing services and supports to students with disabilities during campus closures. But, there was also that extra money set aside by the Governor to compensate students for learning they lost due to unavoidable losses of educational benefits and, presumably, if their local education agencies otherwise botched their pandemic response to the detriment of their kids with special needs. I've been negotiating Informal Dispute Resolutions (IDRs) to claims like these ever since in-person learning resumed, and I'm still dealing with the residual effects of the school closures across my caseload. Which brings me back to this most recent OCR investigation outcome. What OCR and OUHSD are now doing is working together to repair the harm done to all of the OUHSD students with disabilities at the time of the COVID-related school closures who did not get the services and supports they needed such that they are now owed compensatory education. This is a very big deal! According to the Resolution Agreement entered into by the District with OCR, OUHSD must send letters to every potentially impacted student and offer a meeting to determine if any compensatory education is owed to them and, if so, document how it will be provided. OUHSD is not being left to its own devices to determine whether it has met each affected student's needs; OCR will be overseeing OUHSD's implementation of these remedies to make sure they're done correctly. OCR will provide the technical assistance to OUHSD to help it clean up this mess and set things straight. In theory, my work here is done, other than to work with the family of the student for whom I'd filed the complaint to make sure she gets the compensatory education that she is now due. But, for all of the other OUHSD students and former students impacted by this outcome, I still have concerns. None of the other affected students and their families knew about this complaint. They're going to get a letter in the mail that they weren't expecting with an offer to meet with the District to determine if their kids are owed any back-due educational services and not necessarily understand what it is, why they are getting it, or how important it is. Today's post is about making sure that the other students who are impacted by this outcome get what they need and are due. I know that OCR will be working with the District to make sure that the families who avail themselves of the offer to meet regarding their possible compensatory education claims have a fair shot at getting the right stuff. I'm not as worried about those families. The families I'm most worried about are the ones who don't understand English and/or their rights. We have a fair number of households in the District in which the parents may not be educated sufficiently to understand what any of this is about. Unless they actually take the meeting with the District to learn more, OCR is not in a position to help make sure their kids actually get what they need. So, my goal with today's post is to make sure that all the affected OUHSD families are fully aware of what that letter inviting them to meet with the District to discuss compensatory education really means and that they take those meetings and get the remedies that are due to their children. We have to remember that we already paid taxes so these kids could get these services, and then that money was never spent on serving them appropriately during campus closures. This is about belatedly delivering the services that had been previously purchased by the taxpayers but never actually delivered to their intended recipients. The only part of this that brings new costs into the picture is all of the extra work that will now have to be done to help these kids recoup lost learning and catch back up after having been deprived of what had already been paid for in the first place. After all of the OUHSD students who were impacted by this outcome, my next concern after that is all of the other students throughout the County whose school districts also refused to provide in-person services during the COVID-related campus closures who were not similarly held accountable by their regulators. The California Department of Education (CDE) has done a shoddy job, in my experience, of addressing these exact same concerns in other area school districts. None of the school districts in Ventura County, to my knowledge, provided in-person services to any students with disabilities during the campus closures. In fact, I fought tooth-and-nail throughout the period of campus closures with a number of school districts throughout the State to address these same concerns. This instant OCR complaint was just one of many efforts I made to protect my kiddos during campus closures. One family was able to use their health insurance to get in-home ABA services so their child had 1:1 behavioral supports during distance learning, which was the only reason he was successful, but that was an isolated incident. Another family was able to negotiate a settlement agreement with their district to reimburse the parents for paying for a private aide to come to their house to support their child during distance learning, but that was, again, an isolated incident. Most of my students sat at home with their moms as their 1:1 aides, which either worked or didn't, depending on the student. If you look back through the content I created for KPS4Parents during the COVID-related campus closures, you'll see a lot of what I published back then had to do with the mandates that special education and other disability-related services were required to continue without reductions in services and supports. It's nice to know that the United States of America has our students' backs on that point, but they can't investigate the case of every student with disabilities in America. It took over two years to investigate just this one, although systemic violations were uncovered in the course of it doing so. I sincerely hope that the outcome of this investigation benefits not only the students of OUHSD who failed to receive appropriately ambitious educational benefits because of the COVID-related campus closures, but also similarly impacted students in all the other school districts that used the pandemic as an excuse to cut corners and not pay for services that were so seriously needed by so many students with disabilities. This outcome needs to impact more students with special needs than just those within the OUHSD attendance area. It needs to set an example. I find myself frequently telling people that the measure of whether a society is civilized or not goes to how well it takes care of its most vulnerable members, and that special education law is the canary in the coalmine of American democracy. If we can't respect the civil rights of our children with disabilities, what does that say for the civil rights of the rest of us? School districts are not for-profit private businesses; they are government agencies funded to execute the functions of our society for the benefit of the public. We should be able to trust our local government agencies, including our local school districts, to abide by the rule of law. KPS4Parents is currently reaching out to various stakeholders in Ventura County to make sure that the other families affected by this outcome understand exactly what this is, how they are affected, and how to make sure their kids get what they actually need. If you are part of an affected family and need assistance with this process, KPS4Parents will do everything we can to support you, including putting you in touch with other advocates and attorneys if necessary to handle the sheer volume of families who may need this level of assistance. If you are part of another organization or agency that also serves students with special needs in Ventura County and/or their families, and would like to help area families navigate this process, please contact us and we'll get back to you as soon as we possibly can. It's exciting to be part of the solution, but the work is just getting started and our agency can't do it all alone. We're part of the larger community of loving, democracy-minded people who advocate for social justice issues. We need the help of our social justice partners to make sure all of these affected families are properly supported and served, and to help us generalize these remedies to benefit other similarly affected students in other communities. It takes a village, so I'm asking for the rest of the village to step up and help me help all of these other affected families, and for the families who are already experienced with this kind of stuff to help other families who might not be so savvy. This is an exciting time for systemic change, and I want families of children with special needs to feel empowered by this and set the example on how to participate in our democracy at the local level in a meaningful and impactful way. Bottom line, screaming at school board meetings about their personal beliefs and feelings gets parents nowhere, but regulatory complaints filed to enforce the rule of law can be everything.

A new school for LGBTQ students and allies is set to open this fall in New Haven. This hour, we preview the plans for PROUD Academy with founder and executive director Patty Nicolari, and hear from Maddie and Tiffanie, a prospective student and their parent in Fairfield. Nicolari says this would be the first school for LGBTQ youth in Connecticut, and at least the fifth in the U.S. But first, the U.S Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is investigating a discrimination complaint filed by several Farmington parents, alleging the district didn't step in to stop LGBTQ bullying. We hear from one of those parents, Melissa Combs. Farmington Public Schools Superintendent Kathy Greider's office confirmed the district is working through the complaint with OCR in a statement, and cited district policies and efforts around equity and inclusion. The statement also notes that “the district has a different perspective on the factual allegations” in the complaint, but that “we respect the process and will be working with OCR to assist them in their review of these issues.” The investigation is "believed to be the first of its kind in New England," per the Courant, focusing on seven of the ten allegations in the complaint. Melissa Combs: Farmington Parent Patty Nicolari: Founder and Executive Director, PROUD Academy Tiffanie Wong: Fairfield Parent Maddie Joyella: Fairfield Student Support the show: http://wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this last episode of Season Six, join Christina, Miriam, and Lisa for an insightful discussion about the guidance issued by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS). This episode focuses on legal issues commonly arising when disciplining students with disabilities under the IDEA or Section 504. We will be back for Season Seven in Spring of 2023 and we can't wait to share our fabulous line up of cutting-edge education law issues with you. Have a wonderful holiday and fabulous winter break!

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is warning healthcare providers about the mandatory compliance with the HIPAA Right of Access promulgated in the 21st Century CURES Act. So far, enforcement actions bring to 38 the number of financial penalties against HIPAA-covered entities for failing to provide patients with timely access to their medical records.During the next live edition of the long-running Talk Ten Tuesdays, nationally recognized professional coder,  auditor and consultant Terry Fletcher, reports on the do's and don'ts of withholding patient requests for their protected health information. Fletcher will also delve into the penalties and legal exposure that awaits those who are non-compliant.Other segments during the live broadcast include the following:Coding Report: Laurie Johnson, senior healthcare consultant with Revenue Cycle Solutions, LLC will report on the latest coding news.News Desk: Timothy Powell, CPA will anchor the Talk Ten Tuesdays News Desk.RegWatch: Stanley Nachimson, former CMS career professional-turned-well-known healthcare IT authority, will report on the latest regulatory news coming out of Washington, D.C.Journaling John: John Zelem, MD, FACS, founder and CEO for Streamline Solutions Consulting, will continue with his journal entry.TalkBack: Erica Remer,MD, founder and president of Erica Remer, MD, Inc. and Talk Ten Tuesdays co-host, will report on a subject that has caught her attention during her popular segment.  

LAUSD Main Offices - Downtown Los Angeles   The school year hasn't even started yet and Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the second-largest school district in the country, has already hit the ground running with illegalities left and right, not the least of which is the systemic policy issue that I'm focusing on in today's post. It's hardly the only violation, but its a systemic one that stands to continue hurting a lot of children with disabilities, particularly our kiddos on the autism spectrum.   What I'm about to tell you would sound far-fetched if it was not for the fact that the United States is currently engaged in a soft civil war in which right-wing extremists are attempting to change us from a democratic republic to a ethno-religious dictatorship. The evidence indicates these decades-long plans were started at the local level in city councils, school districts, and various county agencies, then percolated upward into our federal agencies before culminating in the January 6, 2021 insurrection against our democratic republic.   The reality is that I've been dealing with these kinds of behaviors from local education agencies for the last 31 years, and there is no end in sight for many families in local education agencies as large as LAUSD. It's the Titanic, it's been on a direct course for an iceberg for decades, and it will collapse and sink under its own weight before too much longer at the rate it's currently going.   This is particularly the case as the pro-democracy backlash to recent fascist efforts to overthrow our system of government is gaining momentum as more and more high-ranking fascist individuals at the federal level face the consequences of their actions with the J6 Hearings and related Department of Justice (DOJ) investigations. When the example is finally set at the national level and all of those responsible for J6 are either behind bars or being pursued by the feds and Interpol after fleeing the country, the trickle-down of legal consequences to State and local government agencies that have been engaging in fascist practices all this time will be severe.   But, we're not there, yet. The only way to really get there is to make public what the heck is really going on so that taxpaying registered voters in Los Angeles can make informed decisions about the people they entrust with the responsibility of educating their children, particularly their children with disabilities. So, let me get into the actual issue to which I want to call immediate attention, that being LAUSD's unlawful and unethical method of conducting Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBAs), which it has implemented as a policy, district-wide, according to District personnel.     Title 34, Code of the Federal Regulations (34 CFR) Section 300.304 describes the parameters for how special education assessments are supposed to be conducted. 34 CFR Sec. 300.320(a)(4) mandates the application of the peer-reviewed research to the design and delivery of special education, which includes the assessment process. Taken together, these laws require that competent assessors acting within the scope of their qualifications conduct assessments according to the professional standards that apply to each of the various types of assessments being conducted, in conformity with the peer-reviewed research.   There is no standardized measure, like an IQ test, when conducting an FBA, though there are assessment tools and instruments that can help inform the process. Instead, the applicable science describes the types of critical thinking and lines of inquiry a properly trained behaviorist must apply when determining the function of a maladaptive behavior and the most appropriate ways of responding to it. The science used is referred to as Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA).   ABA is not a special education service, per se. ABA is the science behind effective behavioral interventions. ABA services requires scientists to think independently in applying the known science to the unique facts of each individual person assessed. It's not a paint-by-numbers, one-size-fits-all measure. It's not psychometrics in the sense that norm-referenced standardized tests will be administered to the student. It requires more thought and higher-level critical thinking skills than that, and the people who are certified to do it must prove their abilities to function that way.   There are no formal criteria for FBAs, specifically, but they are based off the Functional Analysis (FA) procedures developed by Dr. Brian Iwata and his colleagues in their published research. While being certified as a Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA) is supposed to confirm that a behavioral scientist is adequately qualified to analyze behavior, BCBA certification is not required in California for conducting FBAs in the special education context. Anyone who has gone to graduate school for a school psychologist credential should have theoretically been trained on ABA just as a part of their grad school education.   My master's degree is in educational psychology and I had to study ABA more than once during my higher education. It is not typically part of a special education teaching credential program, other than to mention that other professionals are available in the special education context to conduct FBAs and provide ABA-based behavioral interventions.   That is, except, in LAUSD, which is using special education teachers to conduct its FBAs. It will hire Non-Public Agencies (NPAs) that specialize in providing ABA services through and under the supervision of BCBAs, but it will not allow the BCBAs to actually conduct their own FBAs to inform their own Behavior Intervention Design (BID) services, which then compromises the quality of the Behavior Intervention Implementation (BII) services. This is a district policy, according to various LAUSD employees with whom I've been speaking about this since April, and they don't seem to understand why I have such an issue with it.   First, the 8th grade LAUSD student I'm currently representing in which this issue has come up has been "assessed" under this model since the 1st grade and he still has the same behavioral challenges today that he had in 1st grade. He's made no improvements and now he's over 6 feet tall. His toddler-like tantrums result in significant property destruction, which has only gotten worse as he's gotten smarter and bigger over time, and he puts himself and others at risk of injury when he throws them. Not only does LAUSD's method of conducting FBAs fail to comply with the applicable science and law, it does not work!   LAUSD's solution is to offer yet another illegal FBA conducted by an inexpert special education teacher who must then hand off their "data" to a BCBA who is then supposed to somehow magically engage in scientifically valid BID and supervise a Registered Behavior Technician (RBT) who is supposed to provide the BII in conformity with the plan designed by the BCBA. When I point out the epic failure of logic behind this practice to LAUSD personnel, I'm met with the Orwellian Doublespeak of corrupt District administrators and the blank stares of ineptitude and rote recitations of District policy from school-site personnel.   One school site administrator actually tried to get me to lie to the parent and trick him into doing something he otherwise was not inclined to do. I analyzed her behavior according to ABA standards based on what information I could gather and ultimately concluded that she's as stupid as she is corrupt; her behaviors were automatically reinforcing and externally reinforced by her employer, which appears to employ the dumbest people it can find in positions of authority well beyond their critical thinking abilities and professional skills so that they can be the clueless, easily manipulated henchmen of the mafiosos at the main office on Beaudry.   Basically, what we are dealing with here is science denialism and unconstitutional conduct on the part of public officials to the tune of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. LAUSD is the government, regulated by the rule of law and answerable to its local constituency, but the people generally have no voice against this behemoth of a self-serving institution, which is why I'm talking about it, here.   LAUSD is long overdue for a reckoning regarding its systemic illegal conduct across all aspects of special education, and it's probably safe to say that if the District is willing to compromise its most vulnerable constituents, that being children with disabilities, it's likely equally comfortable violating everybody else's rights, as well. I can't speak to the other social justice issues in which the District might be in the wrong, but it has historically failed on the special education front ever since special education and related civil rights laws were first passed in the 1970s.   Disability-related civil rights law is truly the canary in the coal mine for American democracy. The measure of how civilized a society is can be determined by how well it takes care of its most vulnerable members, and children with disabilities are among the most vulnerable humans on Earth. If LAUSD is willing to treat children with disabilities this way, it's top administrators should probably swap out their dress suits for animal pelts so that their lack of civility is adequately conveyed. Otherwise, they're just wolves in sheep's clothing, preying our our most vulnerable children.   The Chanda Smith Consent Decree came after decades of unlawful special education conduct and was in place for decades thereafter in an effort to end the District's unlawful conduct, which it failed to do. The courts attempted to pull LAUSD out of the gutter with the consent decree, but LAUSD just pulled the courts into the gutter with it. An Independent Monitor was hired to oversee the consent decree until such time that LAUSD came into compliance with special education law, but that day never came.   Apparently, presuming that compliance would never happen, the Independent Monitor began engaging in equally corrupt behavior, assuming lifelong job security for so long as LAUSD continued to violate special education law and grifting the system by overpaying consultants who failed to make any kind of perceptible difference with respect to LAUSD's compliance. The Office of the Independent Monitor was shut down and the consent degree was closed out following an audit that revealed excessive unnecessary spending by the Independent Monitor that could not be related to the District's conformity with the consent decree.   Further, while it may be true that the District legitimately improved some of its special education programming, by no means had to come close to a reasonable degree of compliance, as evidenced by the number of families who have still had to file lawsuits to get services, and even that doesn't guarantee they'll get all of the right services for their children. Many get only some of the services their children need, making their IEPs as effective as watered-down penicillin in the face of a raging bacterial infection. For all the services they may actually get that they need, the absence of the other services they also need undermines any successes they may have in the areas in which they've actually received help.   Which circles back around to the question that serves as the title to today's post/podcast, which is, "Is LAUSD Run by a Fascist Mafia?" From the outside looking in, this seems to be a legitimate question.   Let's start with the fact that LAUSD hired computer coders to work with its in-house counsel decades ago to bastardize a piece of insurance software known as Welligent into its IEP software. As a result, LAUSD has basically bureaucratically obligated its school site personnel to break the law because of the software limitations of Welligent, or at least how it has been coded by the District, that fail to even offer compliant options to its users in many areas of special education.   For example, let's look at the assessment plan, redacted for privacy, that was offered to my current LAUSD student, which was generated from Welligent, and compare it to another redacted assessment plan for another student on my caseload in a different school district who also needed an FBA.   Example 1, below, is the assessment plan offered to my LAUSD student, and shows the FBA as an "alternative assessment" to be conducted by a special education teacher. "Alternative assessments" usually refer to non-traditional assessment measures or methods from those typically used in the place of standardized testing.   For example, using curriculum-based assessments in the classroom to gather informal data on actual classroom performance can be a more reliable method of assessing academic achievement than a standardized measure like the WJ-IV or the WIAT-4. None of this assessment plan makes sense with respect to the FBA.   Example 1 - page 1   Looking at the table of "standardized" testing from page 2 of this assessment plan, which is referenced by page 1, FBAs are not listed. Item 7 targets "Adaptive Behavior," but that goes more to independent living skills and self-care, like dressing, toileting, and navigating the school setting. FBAs do not fit that category and the LAUSD assessment plan has no category that FBAs would logically fit. This was a deliberate coding decision made in Welligent by the District that has absolutely nothing to do with adequately assessing children with special needs and offering them appropriate behavioral supports at school.   Example 1 - page 2   Example 2, below, shows a different student's assessment plan from a different school district. This assessment plan offers the student involved an FBA to be performed by the school psychologist in collaboration with a district behaviorist. This actually makes sense.   In this student's case, it turns out the special education teacher was the problem and she got reassigned to a different classroom. This student had gone without behavioral challenges until she was placed in this teacher's class, and the FBA made clear that the teacher was the one provoking the behaviors. Objectivity is one of the most critical aspects of science that must apply to special education assessments. Can you imagine if she had been trusted to conduct the FBA?     I can assure you the quality of the outcomes using appropriately qualified people who actually care makes all the difference in the world. Whereas our LAUSD student has historically been assessed according to plans virtually similar to Example 1, above, and has now gone for over six years with next to no improvements in his behaviors, our student from whose case Example 2 was taken is now thriving in school with no serious behavioral challenges of any kind.   To be clear, it's not like the student in Example 2 has never had issues with this school district. There were problems years ago when she was little that I had to deal with, but it had been smooth sailing until she ended up in that whacko teacher's classroom, last school year.   Because the student's behaviors were interfering with her learning, even though we suspected the teacher was likely the problem, we didn't go in accusing the teacher of anything. We simply asked for an FBA to get to the bottom of the behaviors and the next thing we knew the teacher was gone. The FBA report we got back was very well-written and explained the facts without demeaning the teacher or doing anything else unprofessional.   We hit a huge bump in the road that had the potential to go really badly, but the District in that student's case handled it professionally, compassionately, and responsibly. I've yet to see any of those qualities from anyone I've dealt with from LAUSD regarding my LAUSD student. The difference in handling is night and day, and I've caught both districts messing up before. The difference is that my other student was met with professionalism, while my LAUSD student is being met with science denialism and an utter abandonment of the rule of law.   It is this refusal to abide by science and law on the part of the second largest school district in the nation that raises the specter of fascism. It's all very "Marjorie Taylor Green-ish."   Consider that California has adopted the Common Core as its State Standards. The purpose of these standards is for our public schools in California to teach students how to use academic knowledge and skills to solve real-world problems, yet LAUSD doesn't use academic knowledge and skills to solve problems. It denies science and breaks the law.   How can people who deny science teach our kids to use science to solve problems? How can people who have abandoned the rule of law credibly teach social studies, particularly civics, and educate our kids to become knowledgeable participants in American democracy? How is this anything other than fascism and when are the feds going to do something about it?   I tried filing a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), but it twisted my words into a narrower complaint than what I alleged and then declined to investigate its twisted version of my allegations, which is a first for OCR with me, I have to admit, and it makes me fear for our democracy even more, now.   If OCR is too intimidated by LAUSD to investigate such that it makes up lame excuses as to why it shouldn't have to, how does that not also suggest the presence of organized crime within LAUSD so large and expansive that even the feds won't touch it? DOJ is a little busy with the J6 investigations, but I suspect all of this stuff in inter-related as multiple spokes of a wheel-and-spoke conspiracy to overturn democracy in America.   Remember that Betsy DeVos tried to shut down OCR after she was appointed Secretary of Education by the 45th President until she had the snot sued out of her and subsequently reinstated it. She also admitted that her goal was to abolish USDOE as the Secretary of Education; she took the job with the specific intent of shutting down the entire agency from within.   How many people from the last administration continue to poison the well at USDOE? It's the same question Americans have to ask about every single federal agency, but as pointed out in the above linked-to article from The Root describing DeVos' desire to abolish USDOE altogether also describes the conference at which she recently shared her continued desire to shut down USDOE as teaching far-right parents how to build conservative-dominated school boards in their local communities, ban books, and a host of other undemocratic activities intended to deny the civil rights of children with disabilities, LGBTQ+ students, students of color, and students from other protected classes.   It's an anti-science, anti-democracy approach that includes anti-vax, anti-masking nut-jobs who are too dumb to know how dumb they are and/or are profoundly mentally ill, being manipulated by grifters like DeVos to vote against their own interests in favor of the interests of the grifters. It's the "have-nots" falling for the tricks of the "haves" who know the only way they can have way more than what they actually need is to make sure others don't have enough.   Today's post isn't about documenting how I've figured out a way to overcome whatever fascist mafia might control LAUSD. It's about exposing what I've witnessed and adding my voice and the voices of the LAUSD students who aren't getting what they need to the conversation in the hopes that it will spark others to also help hold LAUSD to account for its egregious violations of special education law.   I'm hoping that voters in LA will learn more about these issues, understand that special education social justice issues cuts across all other demographic groups, and no segment of society is safe for so long as our government is allowed to conduct itself in this way. If you are involved in any type of social justice issue in which LAUSD has engaged in discrimination and withheld services it is legally required to provide, consider getting involved with our Meetup Group, Social Justice Series - Everyday Local Democracy for All.   Our Meetup Group is not limited to people living within the LAUSD attendance area, but we certainly have Angeleños already in the Group. You can comment/DM us directly on Meetup or on our social media, or use our Contact Us form on our site with any questions/feedback. We don't have all the answers, but awareness is the first step to solving a problem, so we're starting there.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) released a Request for Information (RFI) seeking input from the public on two requirements of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (HITECH Act), as amended in 2021. How does it impact cybersecurity and risk management programs? Why do (should) CISOs care about this? Are we about to throw more money at this problem?Maybe a smart question: Is there an opportunity to be smarter?While all are important, that final question is certainly the most valid question. But, the details of the provisions will come when the community feedback comes in. The thing to make note of as you listen to this episode is that there's an opportunity to shape these provisions for the better of the overall healthcare ecosystem, moving beyond lowest common denominator frameworks, standards, and controls.John Houston and Michael Parisi share their thoughts in the current state of cyber risk management affairs, the opportunity to do more in the RFI and potential responses coming in from the community, and how John's experience with an advanced, mature risk management program at UPMC can help set the bar for what's possible — not just from a guidance or framework perspective, but from a fiscally responsible, scalable, operational perspective.Listen in to learn more about the RFI  and the role you can have in shaping its outcome.Not in the healthcare space? You should still pay attention. There's a lot going on in the healthcare sector that other industries can leverage.Note: This story contains promotional content. Learn more.____________________________GuestsJohn HoustonVice President, Information Security and Privacy; Associate Counsel at UPMC [@UPMC]On Linkedin | https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-houston-5b9915b/Michael Parisi, VP of Adoption, @HITRUST____________________________Catch the webcast and the podcast here: https://itspm.ag/hitrust-hhs-ocr-hitech-rfiBe sure to visit HITRUST at https://itspm.ag/itsphitweb to learn more about their offering.____________________________ResourcesNews Release: https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/04/06/hhs-ocr-seeks-public-comment-on-recognized-security-practices-sharing-civil-money-penalties-monetary-settlements-under-hitech-act.htmlIndividuals seeking more information about the RFI or how to provide written or electronic comments to OCR should visit the Federal Register to learn more: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/04/06/2022-07210/considerations-for-implementing-the-health-information-technology-for-economic-and-clinical-health____________________________To see and hear more Redefining Security content on ITSPmagazine, visit:https://www.itspmagazine.com/redefining-cybersecurity____________________________Are you interested in telling your story?https://www.itspmagazine.com/telling-your-story

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) released a Request for Information (RFI) seeking input from the public on two requirements of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (HITECH Act), as amended in 2021. How does it impact cybersecurity and risk management programs? Why do (should) CISOs care about this? Are we about to throw more money at this problem?Maybe a smart question: Is there an opportunity to be smarter?While all are important, that final question is certainly the most valid question. But, the details of the provisions will come when the community feedback comes in. The thing to make note of as you listen to this episode is that there's an opportunity to shape these provisions for the better of the overall healthcare ecosystem, moving beyond lowest common denominator frameworks, standards, and controls.John Houston and Michael Parisi share their thoughts in the current state of cyber risk management affairs, the opportunity to do more in the RFI and potential responses coming in from the community, and how John's experience with an advanced, mature risk management program at UPMC can help set the bar for what's possible — not just from a guidance or framework perspective, but from a fiscally responsible, scalable, operational perspective.Listen in to learn more about the RFI  and the role you can have in shaping its outcome.Not in the healthcare space? You should still pay attention. There's a lot going on in the healthcare sector that other industries can leverage.Note: This story contains promotional content. Learn more.____________________________GuestsJohn HoustonVice President, Information Security and Privacy; Associate Counsel at UPMC [@UPMC]On Linkedin | https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-houston-5b9915b/Michael Parisi, VP of Adoption, @HITRUST____________________________Catch the webcast and the podcast here: https://itspm.ag/hitrust-hhs-ocr-hitech-rfiBe sure to visit HITRUST at https://itspm.ag/itsphitweb to learn more about their offering.____________________________ResourcesNews Release: https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/04/06/hhs-ocr-seeks-public-comment-on-recognized-security-practices-sharing-civil-money-penalties-monetary-settlements-under-hitech-act.htmlIndividuals seeking more information about the RFI or how to provide written or electronic comments to OCR should visit the Federal Register to learn more: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/04/06/2022-07210/considerations-for-implementing-the-health-information-technology-for-economic-and-clinical-health____________________________To see and hear more Redefining Security content on ITSPmagazine, visit:https://www.itspmagazine.com/redefining-cybersecurity____________________________Are you interested in telling your story?https://www.itspmagazine.com/telling-your-story

St. Peter's AD Rachelle Paul on MBB success outcomes, Vandy's new look, the NCPA files suit with the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and much more. Be sure to check your inbox to see more of today's news and notes from around the nation. We would love to know what you think of the show and you can let us know on social media @D1ticker. If you are not subscribed to D1.ticker, you can and should subscribe at www.d1ticker.com/.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 supplemented Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include, in addition to barring discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin, sex as a protected class in federally funded education programs or activities. The purpose of enacting Title IX was to ensure that everyone, regardless of sex, would enjoy a discrimination-free educational experience.In the years since their enactment, observers have accused colleges and universities of violating Titles VI and IX in various ways. Many Title IX concerns have involved single-sex, female-only programs, scholarships, awards, fellowships, camps, clubs, etc. Others have involved single-sex, male-only programs. And recently, programs or scholarships for BIPOC-only or people of color have invoked Title VI concerns. One such observer of these potential civil rights violations is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Michigan, Mark Perry.Over the last three years, Professor Perry has identified more than 1,200 Title IX and Title VI alleged violations and has filed complaints with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) against nearly 400 colleges and universities which have resulted in nearly 200 federal investigations and more than 100 resolutions, mostly in his favor.However, after years of this work, Professor Perry announced recently that he has noticed what he describes as a "significant departure from past practices" in what OCR now requires of Title VI and Title IX complaints. Professor Perry joined Devon Westhill to provide an update on his civil rights advocacy and what he views as "troubling signs" at the Biden-Cardona-Lhamon OCR for a discrimination-free educational experience for all.Featuring:- Mark Perry, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute- [Moderator] Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal OpportunityVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 supplemented Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include, in addition to barring discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin, sex as a protected class in federally funded education programs or activities. The purpose of enacting Title IX was to ensure that everyone, regardless of sex, would enjoy a discrimination-free educational experience.In the years since their enactment, observers have accused colleges and universities of violating Titles VI and IX in various ways. Many Title IX concerns have involved single-sex, female-only programs, scholarships, awards, fellowships, camps, clubs, etc. Others have involved single-sex, male-only programs. And recently, programs or scholarships for BIPOC-only or people of color have invoked Title VI concerns. One such observer of these potential civil rights violations is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Michigan, Mark Perry. Over the last three years, Professor Perry has identified more than 1,200 Title IX and Title VI alleged violations and has filed complaints with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) against nearly 400 colleges and universities which have resulted in nearly 200 federal investigations and more than 100 resolutions, mostly in his favor.However, after years of this work, Professor Perry announced recently that he has noticed what he describes as a “significant departure from past practices” in what OCR now requires of Title VI and Title IX complaints. Please join us for an update from Professor Perry on his civil rights advocacy and what he views as “troubling signs” at the Biden-Cardona-Lhamon OCR for a discrimination-free educational experience for all.Featuring: -- Mark Perry, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute-- Moderator: Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity

Desiree Moore, Gina Bertolini, and Jackie Hoffman discuss the increasing impact of data security incidents and security breaches on the health care sector. They define what qualifies under HIPAA as a protected health information breach, discuss the importance of outside counsel in security incidents, review the timeline of reporting a breach to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), and provide a road map on to how to manage a security incident from start to finish.

On January 13, 2022, after staying up late to finish my last post/podcast, I woke up to find a message in my inbox from the CAPCAA listserv that included a very comprehensive-looking report published by a group referring to itself as "The Office of Administrative Hearings Special Education Task Force," with the email address of oahspecialedreport@gmail.com. The members of this task force are not identified in the report. The report identifies its authors as follows: Authors/Contributors: This accountability report is provided by the Office for Administrative Hearings Special Education Task Force, a coalition of concerned attorneys, advocates and parents. Many of these contributors conducted research, collected and organized the information, and assisted in the writing of this report. Bias, Noncompliance and Misconduct In Special Education Due Process: An Accountability Report on the California Office of Administrative Hearings Special Education Division, January 2022 Given the degree of retaliation that anybody calling out the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) could easily face in the current anti-democratic climate of American politics, these days, I can't say I'm entirely surprised that the individuals responsible for this report have not named themselves in it. That could be really a good way to find some "good ol' boys" burning crosses in their yards and planting pipe bombs in their hedges on behalf of some tax-fattened, suit-wearing carpetbaggers. So, I can't discount the report for lack of identified authors. That leaves nothing but the content of the report with which to judge its legitimacy, but that's almost better. It's like a blind audition on The Voice; it doesn't matter what you look like if you have a good voice. What you have to say and how you say it matters more than what your name is or what you look like. So, that's how I'm looking at this report. In these troubling times, I'm willing to accept verifiable facts from anonymous authors truly fearing for their own safety if they dare to speak the truth. I will not accept unverifiable assertions being openly spewed by people saying whatever will get them attention. So, let's examine the assertions being made by this report. This Task Force's report follows a professional format for organization and presentation of its information, but it's not a legal brief or scientific paper. Not every assertion is supported by black-and-white evidence, but the assertions not supported by evidence are nonetheless consistent with those assertions that are supported by evidence. Additionally, because I work extensively in the very areas of concern targeted by this report, all of it rings true with the experiences that I've lived as a professional over the period of time discussed in this report. That which is not outright supported by evidence in this report is nonetheless credible to me given the evidence that is presented and what I already know to be true from real-life experience. While anecdotal accounts were added to the report to bolster the authors' positions, the identity of those offering these accounts are unknown, so verifying them is impossible. Again, concerns about retaliation and privacy are legitimate, so I don't want to discount the privacy concerns of the authors, but one of the first rules of proving the veracity of a document is authenticating its content with its authors. That's just a basic rule of evidence. At some point, for this document to be taken seriously by regulators and/or legislators, its authors will have to reveal themselves. Putting aside the authorship issues for the moment and delving into the actual content of this report, what this report is basically asserting is that OAH, which is a division of the California Department of General Services (DGS), is organizationally compromised relative to its obligations to try special education cases pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The report supports these arguments with references to a collection of publicly available documents. These arguments appear sound and supported by credible evidence, in my opinion. Of particular note to me were its references to the November 15, 2021 study conducted by CDE titled, California Special Education Governance and Accountability Study, as well as news that the courts finally resolved the issue of continued distance learning for medically vulnerable children on IEPs. This latter issue affects one of our families and I've been waiting to hear about this situation. The Task Force's assertions in its report are also consistent with my experiences dealing with OAH since it took over the hearings in 2005. In fact, I first became a paralegal in 2005 and witnessed the very shenanigans reported by the Task Force with the change-over from the Special Education Hearing Office (SEHO) to OAH that same year. It was a dumpster fire inside of a clown car that had crashed into a train wreck, to put it mildly. OAH underbid SEHO in terms of the costs of conducting special education mediations and hearings by failing to include the costs of administrative support and sending mediators and judges around the State to handle each case in its local community, which allowed OAH to come under SEHO's bid by several million dollars, as memory serves. The moment it opened its doors for business, it was already millions of dollars over-budget from what it had bid to get the business from SEHO. The quality of the judges from OAH was atrocious out of the gate. One then-new judge went down in California special education parent/student legal history for the angrily and stupidly stated words, "Ms. [Attorney], what does autism have to do with behavior!?!" When you have people who have no idea what anybody is talking about deciding the futures of children who have no voice of their own in the process, those of us who are trying to protect these children become almost as powerless as the children we're trying to protect. We were, and continue to be, faced with people entrusted with responsibilities that are clearly light years beyond their actual skills and knowledge, and the authorities and powers that go with those responsibilities. What is the point of having the rule of law if the people responsible for enforcing it are personally incentivized to break it or are otherwise too dumb to know how to enforce it? We're paying these people to implement the regulations, not to invent excuses as to why they don't have to and bully the rest of us if we dare to question them. I've been saying for the last 30+ years that special education issues are civil rights issues, and if our babies aren't truly protected, then none of us really are. The national political landscape appears to support my conclusions, not that I'm happy to be right about that. Marginalized groups with specifically identified protected rights are always the first ones targeted by fascists, so special education is really a "canary in the coal mine" when it comes to American democracy. Clearly, we're not doing that well and this Task Force is seeing a lot of the same things I'm seeing. Regardless of the authorship issue, which I suspect will be resolved in due time, the evidence cited in this report and the consistency of what it describes with what I live and breathe everyday inclines me to treat it as credible, though if anyone can find an inaccurate assertion in it, please post a comment and let me know. At minimum, another federal investigation is warranted based on this report, but I don't know that going to the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is the right way to go, now. As the report discloses, there was already an OCR investigation in 2014 of the California Department of Education (CDE) as it pertains to making its hearings accessible to individuals with disabilities. I won't repeat the anecdotal account of what that was all about, here; you can read it yourself in the report. But, I warn you, it's upsetting. I wish I could say it was too outlandish to be true, but it sounds just about right for OAH and CDE, based on my own experiences. Last year, just to give you an example from my own caseload, I filed a compliance complaint with CDE against a local school district for failing to implement all of a student's IEP during the pandemic-related shutdown. The most critical element of the complaint was the district's failure to provide in-person 1:1 aide services, as required by the child's IEP. Instead, the district put the aide for this non-verbal, inattentive, prompt-dependent child with autism on Zoom, requiring the child's mother to be the in-person aide helping her child access Zoom, constantly cueing him attend to the online instruction, and prompting him through all of his work tasks to completion. The aide could only sit there, staring at them through the screen, completely useless ... at taxpayer expense. The aide was willing to provide in-person support and the non-public agency (NPA) that employed the aide was ready to send her to the student's house in a mask for in-person services during distance learning, but the district wouldn't permit any in-person services during shutdown. This single parent ended up selling her condo and moving, with her children, in with family friends, in no small part because she couldn't work a paid job while sitting at home serving as the free aide for her child with special needs throughout each school day while the paid aide sat in her own home on Zoom, unable to do her actual job. This was a blatant violation of State and federal law that the district kept blaming on the county's health department. I challenge anybody to find a legal authority that gives a county health department the authority to tell a school district that it doesn't have to abide by the IDEA. After attempting to get the district to do the right thing by way of written correspondence and the IEP process to no avail, I filed a regulatory complaint with CDE. CDE opened an investigation based on what I alleged through its complaint intake unit, but then the investigator subsequently assigned to the complaint materially altered the nature of the investigation and cited the district for a different violation of the law than what I had originally alleged, and failed to issue a finding regarding the original allegation I'd made about the aide. The investigator's findings then went to yet another unit within CDE that developed the order for corrective actions, which included compensatory special education instruction for lost service minutes, but it was silent regarding aide support during those compensatory services. Think about this for a minute. I alleged in my complaint that the district failed to provide aide support during distance learning. The intake unit opened an investigation in response to my complaint based on the allegation of the district's failure to implement the IEP as written, specifically with regard to 1:1 aide support. The investigator found that the district failed to implement all of the instructional minutes in the IEP, but issued no finding regarding the 1:1 aide support. The corrective actions unit ordered compensatory instruction to make up for lost service minutes, but there was no mention of aide support. Once corrective actions have been ordered by CDE and its findings are sent out to the parties, the offending education agency has to provide proof of corrective actions to yet another unit of CDE. When I called that unit to get clarification as to whether the compensatory service minutes were supposed to include the 1:1 aide support called for by the IEP, that unit's response was, "Yes." The offending district's attorneys (definitely of the Rudy Guilliani/Syndey Powell variety), however, said, "No." They then tried to fight with CDE over whether or not the compensatory service minutes had to include the same 1:1 aide support the student required throughout the school day in every other instructional setting, as per his IEP, likely billing the district by the hour the whole time. What ensued turned into an internal feud within CDE. The unit at CDE responsible for collecting proof of corrective action from the district insisted that, because the IEP called for 1:1 aide support during any and all instruction, it was understood that 1:1 aide support also had to be provided during the compensatory services ordered. But, not everybody involved with the investigation at CDE agreed. What I came to suspect was that the investigator and legal department at CDE had deliberately steered my complaint away from its original allegations for presumably fiscal and/or political reasons. It certainly had nothing to do with CDE abiding by its obligations or making the district comply with the law. It had absolutely nothing to do with protecting the educational and civil rights of a little boy with autism who can barely talk and needs an aide to access his education. Reading through this Task Force's report, I'm now seeing that experience again through new eyes. The argument the CDE is fiscally motivated to find it does nothing wrong and neither do its districts, regardless of the facts, as asserted by the Task Force, resonates with me as true. Another compelling argument asserted by this report that also rings true for me is that DGS exists for the purpose of cutting costs, not ensuring the State's compliance with federal mandates or protecting the rights of citizens. The report further argues that, as an integral part of DGS, OAH also exists for no reason other than to control costs and not to protect the rights of California's citizens. As such, the Special Education division of OAH is not organized in a manner consistent with the requirements of the IDEA that special education hearings and mediations be conducted by impartial parties whose only function is to protect the educational and civil rights of students with disabilities. A State employee who is being told their primary function is to save money should not be in charge of making sure the State abides by the IDEA. It's an outright conflict of interest, which this Task Force asserts in its report. This isn't just a philosophical assertion; it's a regulatory requirement. The IDEA requires education agencies to design and implement individualized programs of instruction that confer appropriately ambitious educational benefits upon each student according to his/her/their unique circumstances, regardless of cost. A State agency that exists to cut costs should not be making programming decisions in situations in which it is unlawful for cost considerations to be used to determine who will get what. That, to me, explains a lot of the hyper-Republicanism (in the present-day fascist sense of the term, not the former "Party of Lincoln" sense of it) going on in California's special education system. And, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that, back in 2005, right-wing grifters were responsible for giving the special education due process business back to OAH. One of the sleaziest special ed law firms there ever was, which happened to be the largest special ed law firm representing school districts in California at the time, was Lozano Smith. It was instrumentally involved in getting the due process hearings switched to OAH in 2005. All of this came on the heels of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2004, which resulted in changes to the IDEA. Those changes created an opportunity for anti-student and anti-parent forces to lobby for changes to how California handled its special education matters, from changes to State law, to changing who enforced the laws from SEHO to OAH. However, in 2005, something else big happened involving Lozano Smith, right after OAH took the special education hearings back over. Lozano Smith will live on in infamy, at least in my mind, for decades to come following two public displays of anti-democratic behavior. The first was its epic 2005 faceplant in the matter of Moser v. Bret Harte Union High Sch. Dist. (366 F. Supp. 2d 944 (E.D. Cal. 2005)), which made the news. The second public example that stands out in my mind was its 2014 amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court opposing protections for special education students under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the matter of K.M. v. Tustin Unified Sch. Dist., 78 F. Supp. 3d 1289 (C.D. Cal. 2015). This second example didn't steal headlines, but the actual outcome of the case was huge for students with special needs regarding their disability-related communication needs. If special education advocacy has been the "canary in the coal mine" of American democracy, Lozano Smith has been one of the Mitch McConnell-esque specters of obstructive fascism that has been trying to snuff the voices of "canaries" like me for decades. I'm convinced that every single unrepentant person who had a hand in the Bret Harte mess and anything else like it will have a special place waiting for them in Trump Tower Hell, when they die; perhaps it will be named the Lozano Smith Suite. In the present, all of the concerns raised by this Task Force's report are grounded in the realities I deal with every day. The fact that the authors fear to reveal their identities is also grounded in the harsh reality that the fascists aren't even trying to hide the fact that they are coming for us, anymore. Anybody who stands up for civil rights, these days, is a target, and I realize that includes me just by saying so. Here's the thing, though. Those of us accustomed to dealing with special education issues who understand Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) also know an Extinction Burst when we see one. So long as those of us who see this Extinction Burst for what it is continue to abide by our professional ethics, stand our ground, and stick to the applicable science and rule of law, none of the self-serving histrionics of those with anti-democratic tendencies within our government will overcome our fact-based arguments. We have to keep acting like we live in a democracy or it stops being one. We may lose battles on occasion, particularly in those States currently permeated by maskless, unvaccinated seditionists spreading COVID as readily as their lies, but the only way we lose the overall initiative is if democracy fully collapses in the United States. All of us "canaries" need to start beating our wings and squawking loudly as the voices of experience when it comes to fighting fascism within America's government, or it's curtains for all of us. It's not shocking news to any of us that the fascists are targeting local government, including school boards, as a means of seizing control of the country. That's nothing new! That's what all of us working in special education advocacy have been up against since the original laws that protect our children were passed in the 1970s. To the rest of the Country, it's unfortunate that it's now happening to you, too, but we welcome you to the front lines and look forward to working with you to win this soft civil war currently being fought over basic rights and the rule of law in America. To our colleagues fighting similar battles on behalf of other marginalized groups, we look to unify with you. When it comes right down to it, those of us who exist in marginalized groups collectively outnumber the few individuals at the center who put us in their margins. In a democracy, majority rules. The minority of individuals who want to rob the rest of us of our rights cannot oppress a unified majority. Special education rights are human rights, just like ethnic rights, gender rights, sexual orientation rights, relationship rights, etc. If all of us whose rights are being infringed upon join forces instead of competing for the crumbs that fall from the would-be oligarchs' tables, we can be sitting at the table eating meals full of freedom with everybody else, instead.

Welcome solo and group practice owners! We are Liath Dalton and Roy Huggins, your co-hosts of Person Centered Tech. In our latest episode, we're talking about fear-mongering around HIPAA compliance.  We discuss the HIPAA police and why people think they're real, the consequences of noncompliance, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), approaching security from a fear-based perspective vs a practical perspective, what to do when there's a breach of information, how disclosures frequently happen, notifying the OCR and clients, managing client trust, taking remedial action, not letting stress escalate, that notification doesn't equal punishment, reducing the likelihood of a breach, real risk scenarios for group practice, not acting out of fear, and our upcoming Distress Less series.  Listen here: https://personcenteredtech.com/group/podcast/ Stay tuned for future episodes! For more, visit our website. Resources *Free* Distress Less Series (Therapy for Therapists)  Article: What is HIPAA Breach Notification? PCT's Risk Analysis and Risk Mitigation Planning HIPAA Security Module (done *for* you) PCT's Group Practice HIPAA Security Programs (that also help you leverage your practice tech tools to optimize functionality, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness!)  Group Practice Office Hours (direct support and consultation service from PCT team and Eric Strom, JD PhD LMHC)   

Sports law in the United States overlaps substantially with labor law, contract law, competition or antitrust law, and tort law. Issues like defamation and privacy rights are also integral aspects of sports law. This area of law was established as a separate and important entity only a few decades ago, coinciding with the rise of player-agents and increased media scrutiny of sports law topics. Amateur sports law. Membership is voluntary. The NCAA operates along a series of bylaws that govern the areas of ethical conduct, amateur eligibility, financial aid, recruiting, gender equity, championship events, and academic standards. The NCAA has enforcement power and can introduce a series of punishments up to the death penalty, the company term for the full shut-down of a sporting activity at an offending college. Coaches are offered contracts and if any contractual agreement is violated NCAA has the right to hold any person under the contract liable. Title IX is an increasingly important issue in college sports law. The act, passed in 1972, makes it illegal for a federally funded institution to discriminate on the basis of sex or gender. In sports law, the piece of legislation often refers to the effort to achieve equality for women's sports in colleges. The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is charged with enforcing this legislation. This agency implemented a three-prong test for schools to adhere to: Are the opportunities for female and male athletes proportionate to their enrollment? Does the school have a history of expanding athletic opportunities for women? Has the school demonstrated success in meeting the needs of its students? In 1995 the Gender in Equity Disclosure Act was passed to require schools to make an annual, public report on male-female athletic participation rates, recruiting by gender, and financial support. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Brown University v Cohen, is an important aspect of litigation for women sports. A critical piece of federal legislation, the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 guarantees certain due process rights including hearings and appeals for U.S. athletes under the governance of the USOC and its NGBs. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Check out this syndicated podcast that was featured on the Succeed in A&P podcast and will now be featured here on Science Lab Radio! Accessibility is one of McGraw Hill's key initiatives—and incredibly important for the future of learning. Join host Valerie Kramer and Lisa Nicks (McGraw Hill) as we talk about what accessibility means and why it's so important in everything we do. Accessibility: When a person with a disability is afforded the opportunity to acquire the same information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same services as a person without a disability in an equally integrated and equally effective manner, with substantially equivalent ease of use.—The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Education

Accessibility is one of McGraw Hill's key initiatives—and incredibly important for the future of learning. Join host Valerie Kramer and Lisa Nicks (McGraw Hill) as we talk about what accessibility means and why it's so important in everything we do. Accessibility: When a person with a disability is afforded the opportunity to acquire the same information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same services as a person without a disability in an equally integrated and equally effective manner, with substantially equivalent ease of use.—The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Education

This month our Educational Equity webinar will focus on student discipline, specifically racial disparities and disproportionality in exclusionary discipline, relationships with SROs, and improving school climate. We are thrilled to have Dr. Jerry Anderson, Principal at Bloom High School in Bloom Township High School District 206, and Dr. Ellen Swanson, Assistant Superintendent for Student Services in Des Plaines School District 62, join us for this webinar. Kendra Yoch and Amy Dickerson will serve as moderators and Emily Tulloch will highlight legal considerations. Recent data from the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) reveals continued disproportionality in school discipline responses, particularly when comparing Black and White students and in relation to students with disabilities. In this session, we will discuss steps school districts can take to comply with legal requirements, avoid liability, and combat disproportionality, including through the use of restorative disciplinary practices, staff training, and culturally responsive instruction.

On March 11, 2021, President Joseph R. Biden issued an Executive Order titled “Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free from Discrimination on the Basis of Sex….” President Biden's Order requires the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to undertake a comprehensive review of existing Title IX policies, including sexual harassment regulations that the Trump administration issued last year. Earlier this month, OCR conducted public hearings as part of its review. This webinar will provide differing perspectives on the issues that are now under OCR review, such as how best to address sexual assault, protect due process, and ensure that related public policy goals are met in schools and colleges.Featuring: -- Samantha Harris, Attorney, Allen Harris Law-- Shiwali Patel, Director of Justice for Student Survivors and Senior Counsel, National Women's Law Center-- Moderator: Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

Wes Morris, Managing Principal Consultant, Clearwater, speaks with Joy Easterwood, Johnson Pope Bokor Ruppel & Burns LLP, about the Office for Civil Rights (OCR)'s recently announced eighteenth settlement of an enforcement action in its HIPAA Right of Access Initiative. OCR announced this initiative to support individuals' right to timely access of their health records at a reasonable cost under the HIPAA Privacy Rule. Morris and Easterwood discuss the latest activity on this front and steps that health care organizations can take to ensure they are adhering to the regulations. Sponsored by Clearwater. 

During this episode, Ellen Bernstein-Ellis, Co-Director of the Aphasia Treatment Program at Cal State East Bay in the Department of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, talks with Bob Williams and Tauna Szymanski from CommunicationFIRST. Guest Bios Bob Williams, Policy Director of CommunicationFIRST, helped to co-found the organization in 2019, after retiring from a distinguished four-decade career in federal and state government and the nonprofit sector, most recently as Director of the US Independent Living Administration at the US Department of Health and Human Services. He is a nationally recognized leader on policy issues relating to supporting people with the most significant disabilities to live, work, and thrive in their own homes and communities. For over 60 years, Mr. Williams has relied on an array of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) strategies, including a series of speech generating devices over the past three decades. He lives with his wife in Washington, DC, where they enjoy visits with the grandkids, walking along the riverfront, Netflix binges, and all things Springsteen. Tauna Szymanski became the Executive Director and Legal Director of CommunicationFIRST in 2019. Previously, she spent twenty years working on climate change law and policy, including 13 years at an international law firm in London and Washington, DC, where she volunteered and represented clients pro bono in disability rights and inclusive education matters. Ms. Szymanski has graduate degrees in law and public policy. She grew up around the world as the child of US Foreign Service Officers and is multiply disabled.   In today’s episode you will: Learn about CommunicationFIRST’s efforts to advocate for policy reform in order to protect and advance the rights of individuals with speech-related disabilities Hear the story behind the June 2020 ruling to protect the rights of individuals with communication disability to have access to their communication support partner in the hospital, even during Covid Find out the benefits to filling out the Communication Tool Kit before a person with aphasia enters a hospital Learn about using the Hospital Visitation checklist offered by CommunicationFIRST Find out why we talk about Bruce Springsteen   Edited show notes:  Greetings to our Podcast listeners, This is Ellen Bernstein-Ellis, your host today, and you’re listening to an updated version of episode 68 with CommunicationFIRST. Let me share what happened to the original podcast because there's a valuable lesson in this story. Bob Williams, one of the guests that you’ll be meeting shortly, uses an assistive device to speak. He is indeed an eloquent and powerful speaker, as you will soon hear.  Bob spends considerable time preparing for interviews by prerecording content on his device since real time responses can be time consuming. However, as a matter of principle, Bob always opens his presentations by typing in real time in order to educate the public by providing some insight into the fuller experience of being an AAC user. The remainder of his interview responses are played at a more typical speaking rate. Unfortunately, because I didn't provide explicit instructions to our podcast producer, Bob’s response in that section of the podcast was edited from  four and a half minutes to 30 seconds to eliminate the audio lag. I failed to catch this unexpected revision in the final copy before it was posted.  I want to thank Bob, and Tauna, our other guest, for bringing this to our attention so we could redo the episode and restore his original response as it was delivered. I sincerely offer my apologies and appreciate their gracious understanding as we worked together to resolve this issue. Thank you too to our podcast producer for quickly responding to our concerns. To our listeners, Bob’s first response is a small but important window into the effort it takes to be an AAC user and also how to be a respectful listener and effective communication partner.  I found Bob and Tauna's interview profoundly impactful. They are passionate, expert advocates, as their mission states,  in advancing the rights, autonomy, opportunity, and dignity of people with speech-related communication disabilities and conditions. Be sure to check out the CommunicationFIRST website at www.communicationfirst.org Interviewer: Ellen Bernstein-Ellis Welcome to both of you today. Thank you for being here Bob, do you want to add anything to your impressive bio? What brought you to CommunicationFIRST?   I want to explain to our listeners that for this response, you're going to respond in real time, which means the listener is going to hear some typing as you compose your response. Thank you, Bob. Bob Williams  Thank you. Over 50 years ago, my parents, brothers and sisters, and I started to figure out ways I could express myself and that is why we can have this conversation. CommunicationFIRST is committed to making certain that all children and adults, and older Americans with disabilities that need ACC get that same chance. Bob, you and I spoke before the interview of how important it was to actually demonstrate to show how laborious and effortful it is for people with communication disabilities to communicate effectively, and to how important is for the partner to be patient and develop good listening skills. And you're actually the one who pointed out the corollary with individuals with aphasia, who may also need the partner to give them more time and have more patience so they can participate fully in the conversation. So thank you for sharing that and making sure that lesson is out there today.  I'd like to share my first lesson about being a good communication partner for someone using AAC, because I set up our tech meeting, and learned the hard way that the password was actually a barrier to you joining our meeting. By the time we figured out the problem, there just wasn't time for you to participate because you had another Zoom meeting you had to attend. And that one was at the White House, so that meeting won out. It left me totally impressed, of course. I decided this was a good lesson to share with our listeners. I've learned a lot in preparing and appreciate this honor of working with you for this interview. Thank you. Bob, how do you get ready for something like this that involves prepared and live responses? Bob Williams  I prepare most of what I am going to say in advance. Having worked with members of Congress, a cabinet secretary, and others who place a high value in brevity, has really developed my skills. To do this, I cut and paste, and repurpose as much as what I can, but it is time intensive. For the last 30 years, I have composed everything on my computer and transferred it to my speech generating device, which has advantages and downsides. Now, I am starting to experiment with the hybrid approach. You heard what I spelled out on my device. And what you are hearing now is the read aloud feature which is included in Microsoft Word. That voice quality is better and it cuts out the transferring and other hassles. Once I get the routine down, I am confident it will improve things. Responding to things in real time is never easy. It is just something you deal with as best you can. Bob, before we started recording, you explained that there will be some pauses between our questions because you have to physically reposition the cursor to read your next response. I just want to give the listener a heads up that they may have to wait a moment. Getting back to what you just said, Bob, what are the implications of what you shared for the people we work with who have aphasia? Bob Williams  If there is anything I want you to take away from what I say, it is this, the people you work with are making huge motoric and cognitive effort to express themselves and to be understood, regardless of whether they are using a speech generating device or not. The work they do is often Herculean. But many never realize that and view individuals with aphasia and others with significant expressive disabilities as less than, as having little to no human need, ability, or right to express themselves and to be heard. Because you and I know better, our most fundamental duty is to shatter this narrative. The idea that we can acquiesce and be complicit in letting people live incommunicado must become morally repugnant. Bob, that gave me the chills. It's so eloquent and so beautiful. Thank you. I think it leads us to the next question. It’s about the passion you and Tauna both share for communication access.  What are the mission and values of CommunicationFIRST? Bob Williams  We often get asked how we can expect to defend and expand on the civil rights and opportunities of people who seem to have nothing in common, except, of course, that we are voiceless and powerless. I was among those who was asked much the same question about what was then seen as this pipedream called the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is true we are diverse demographically, in terms of the disabilities and conditions we have, when and how we acquired them, how we communicate and a host of factors.  But here is what unites us. Like all people, we have the same intrinsic human need. The same human capacity and the same inalienable human and civil rights to effectively express ourselves and to be understood. Recognizing these truths about ourselves, that there is strength in our numbers, and recognizing we have rights and must demand them. These are the essential building blocks of CommunicationFIRST and the human and civil rights and liberties movement we are forging.  Thank you, Bob. My next question is for you, Tauna. Who do you serve? And what is your connection to aphasia? Tauna Szymanski  Thank you, Ellen, for the invitation to join your podcast today. This is actually our first podcast, so we're having a lot of fun with this. As Bob suggested, CommunicationFIRST is a very broad and diverse organization in terms of the group of people we seek to represent. So, the one commonality is that we will seek to advance the interests and the rights of anyone who cannot rely on speech to be understood, and that includes people who were born with a speech disability, and those who acquire a condition or disability later in life that makes speech communication difficult, and that includes people with aphasia. I'd like to hear a little more about the history of CommunicationFIRST. Tauna Szymanski  Sure. Well, as you noted earlier, we were only founded about 18 months ago. We publicly launched in October of 2019. It really came about over the prior few prior few years, as we realized that there were well established organizations. effective organizations, that represented people with the other two types of communication disabilities, vision and hearing disabilities, but strangely, not a single organization that really worked on the third type of communication disability, speech related disabilities. So there were, you know, there are some organizations for professionals and there's organizations that sort of worked on broader issues impacting folks with intellectual and developmental disabilities, some of whom have speech related disabilities, but no one who's really focused on the rights and interests of this large population, which is just equally as large as those other two communication disabilities. It came about because of the realization and the fact that the issues are just as intractable, if not more so, than for the other two populations of people with communication disabilities. I'm really grateful that you collaboratively started this organization. I didn't realize it was a new one, because you have already accomplished so much, just looking at your website. How are you seeking to achieve your mission?  Bob Williams  Well, it begins like everything else involving changing hearts and minds. Creating greater justice must begin in conversations like this one. Most of all, it takes creating the opportunity, spaces, and support for more of us who need AAC to get to know each other. And to recognize that we share not just the same kind of challenges, prejudice, and discrimination in common, but that the civil rights, accommodations, and support also are largely the same. And we share a common responsibility to each other to bring such changes about. Thank you. You are an eloquent speaker. Can you explain why CommunicationFIRST views this as right as a civil rights challenge?  Bob Williams  The National Aphasia Association 2020 survey on public awareness surveyed 1001 persons asking if having a speech disability is a sign that someone has an intellectual disability. Fortunately, 58% of the respondents said they either strongly or somewhat disagreed that is a true statement. But 42% said they either strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement. You and I know there is nothing soft or benign about the bigotry of low expectations. Or of social isolation, institutionalization and a lifetime incommunicado. We all have witnessed its absurd and horrid injustices. It is time to call it what it is. And to end it. This is why we do this work and need allies like all of you to join in. We have to work together. That is absolutely right. We're always stronger together. What is something big that you've learned during COVID, about healthcare ACC disparities? Tauna Szymanski  I can try to start out with this one. So as I mentioned, we launched only six months before COVID broke out. So, we had to very quickly pivot our plan or rollout for the first year to addressing what we quickly realized would be a very significant issue impacting our population-- one slice of which we knew would be these new no visitor policies in hospital and congregate care settings.  Especially because we know that virtually everyone in our population who has expressive communication disabilities needs some kind of human physical support in order to communicate. After everything shut down, and hospitals started implementing these no visitor policies, we issued toolkits about rights. Then we started getting calls about this issue and, in the course of doing that work, I personally have really come to appreciate and develop a much broader and deeper understanding of what communication really is and how much broader it is than just speech and hearing and vision.  Also how individualized communication and communication supports are. That's something that's actually been a personal blessing to me and in the work as we started with this organization. It's been an unexpected gift, really. Thank you for sharing that, Tauna. And Bob, do you want to speak to something you've learned during COVID and health and AAC disparities? Bob Williams  We have known about the deep disparities in health, education, and economic well-being that are part of the everyday lives of African Americans and other people of color with and without disabilities long before the pandemic and the vile white supremacy of the last several years. Because of the work of the National Black Association for Speech, Language and Hearing, as well as researchers and practitioners like Dr. Charles Ellis, and others, we are learning more. Not just that black, indigenous people of color and those who are multilingual are more likely to acquire more significant degrees of like aphasia, Parkinson, TBI and early onset disabilities like cerebral palsy, which require them to use an array of communication and other services and supports. But they also face disproportionate barriers and discrimination in accessing the services, AAC, and assistive technology required to each lead a decent life. Absolutely. And I'm admirer of Dr. Charles Ellis's work as well. So Bob, what needs to happen to get policymakers to understand and address both the systemic barriers as well as effective practices that research is identifying? And how can we help to elevate the need for action. Bob Williams  I mentioned Dr. Ellis, a leading expert on aphasia among black people and the director of the Communication Equity and Outcomes Laboratory at East Carolina University. Over the past several months, I have read his work as well as that of others doing similar research. And I think it's accurate to say we know and are learning more about what inequity in access to AAC and communication supports look like, as well as its devastating effects it has on people. We must now create urgency around what communication equity must look like and what we must do to retain it. In January, we prepared and were joined by 47 other organizations in submitting a Communication Equity Call to Action to provide the Biden administration. In it, we call on them to take concrete actions to create equal access to AAC, regardless of one's race, disability, age, language, or other status. Check it out on our website. And we will be glad to talk to anyone who wants to become more involved in our efforts. Thank you, thank you, for the work you're doing. That leads to the topic of what introduced me to CommunicationFIRST as an organization this summer in the first place. Could you please tell our listeners how you met Patient GS, that patient who's actually behind the June 2020 ruling to protect the rights of individuals with communication disability to have access to their communication support partner in a hospital setting, even during COVID?  Tauna Szymanski  As I mentioned earlier, in March of 2020, we issued a COVID-19 Communication Rights toolkit, which was designed to be a way or resource for folks who were going into the hospital due to COVID, who needed to ensure that they could access the communication support they needed in that environment, even if that communication support needed to be another human being.  So in other words, it was an accommodation request under disability rights laws for someone with a communication disability to be provided a reasonable modification to those no visitor policies and to other non-human communication supports like AAC and other communication accommodations that might be needed. That had come out in late March and I believe it was about two weeks later, I got a cold call on our main line from a woman in Connecticut whose mother had just been taken to the hospital less than 24 hours prior by ambulance. She was a 73 year old woman, GS were like initials to keep her identity confidential, but she's since come public. Her name is Joan Parsons, and she had acquired aphasia, I think 11 or 12 years prior due to an aneurysm and she was going to the hospital for non-COVID-related reasons. Her family, who had always accompanied her in the ambulance on necessary hospital visits and had remained with her in the hospital to ensure that she could communicate and understand, were prevented from doing so.  One thing led to another and we attempted to advocate and ultimately we needed to file an administrative complaint with the Office for Civil Rights at the US Department of Health and Human Services and something we did with Disability Rights Connecticut and a few other disability rights organizations. Can you can you share a little bit more about what the ruling entailed?  Tauna Szymanski  We filed that complaint in early May and very quickly the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened up what's called Early Case Resolution procedure, which all the parties have to agree to. The complaint was both against this individual hospital, which was Hartford Hospital in Connecticut, but also against the state of Connecticut for not having a statewide policy that reminded hospitals of this need to include exceptions in these no visitor policies for people with disabilities who needed in person support. It was sort of a two tiered complaint. Over the course of the next month or so, OCR, and Connecticut, and the hospital, and the disability groups, negotiated resolution to those complaints.  Ultimately, the resolution was an agreement for Patient GS, to be ensure that she could have that in person access. She was actually still hospitalized, after getting diagnosed with COVID, and was in the ICU for this entire time, six weeks. She was still in the hospital, I believe, that day we signed it. She ended up being released later, but we had resolved the practical issues earlier so she was able to be supported.  But the broader results of this complaint was that the state of Connecticut issued emergency regulations that essentially were a policy that laid out the law and said, yes, people with disabilities are entitled to have a support person present if needed, despite hospital visitor policies. It laid out a lot of the details about PPE and safety precautions that need to be taken. It wasn't a lawsuit, but rather, it was a decision that was endorsed by the Office for Civil Rights. It became a national precedent and an indication of what the federal government was saying that, yes, this is what needs to happen.  After that, we didn't have a whole lot of issues. We would just point people who were calling with these issues to that resolution. That was the backbone and that came out June 9 of 2020.   That had really widespread impact that summer. I saw the posting, that's how it came to my attention. We were cheering because for us, that's landmark, as protection for the people we work with and care about. They we're telling us stories of being so scared about going to the hospital and not being able to communicate.  Not only did you have that landmark ruling, but you also created this Hospital Visitation Framework document. Could you please speak to what the main criteria are for evaluating if a hospital policy is discriminatory? Let me share with the listeners one quote from the document: “Doctors have an ethical obligation to seek and obtain informed consent from every patient, something that cannot take place, if the patient does not have the tools and supports necessary to become informed, ask questions and make decisions and communicate consent. No visitor policies pose serious barriers to individuals with disabilities who require in person supports.” Could you explain a little bit more about the hospital visitation framework? Tauna Szymanski  Sure. Together with the other disability rights organizations that we worked with on this issue, we put together this document, the Hospital Evaluation Framework. It was put together to compile best practices really, to highlight some of the better state policies and hospital policies out there in terms of the detail.  One of the things that I never thought I would, a year and a half ago, be looking at were these nitty gritty sort of details like under what circumstances can a support person eat and use the restroom while in the hospital? This is really what a lot of these negotiations come down to is that kind of detail. States still are all over the map with their policies and some states don't even have policies on this issue. And hospitals are all over the map, especially in states that don't have policies. We thought it made sense. I was on a daily basis getting calls on these issues and coaching folks in various states here are the sorts of things that you need to be thinking about.  As we were negotiating with OCR and Connecticut about elements that are important to put in these policies, this (framework) was the compilation of a lot of these issues. And we wanted to make it helpful for states and hospitals to adopt comprehensive policies that ensure that patients with disabilities would be able to be supported and have equal access. Part of this document reminds folks of this ethical and legal obligation that healthcare providers have to ensure they're seeking and obtaining informed consent from their patients. So if a patient has a communication disability, they're still entitled to be provided with informed consent.  Part of becoming informed is being able to understand what is being presented in terms of treatment options and also being able to ask questions about those options. And then, of course, providing that consent. Much of what we've had to do in terms of advocating on this issue is reminding healthcare providers that you still have to do this, right? Just because that person doesn't have the communication tools right now, you have to provide those (tools) to ensure that they can have that opportunity. And in the case of aphasia, and with Patient GS, a lot of what we were advocating for was reminding (providers) that Patient GS has aphasia and she can understand a lot, but sometimes she needs help with rephrasing. The only person that can really help with that is someone who knows her and knows the background of how she understands and expresses things. And how she can be asked questions in a certain way to ensure that she is answering in a way that is going to lead to an agreement, or decision, or consent.  This Evaluation Framework document methodically goes through some of these elements that we found were really essential to have in some of these no visitor policies. Including, is there a requirement in the state policy for a hospital to follow the policy? Some of them suggested it was optional. Or, what kind of facilities does the Framework cover? Does it just include hospitals? Or, does it also include congregate care type facilities, long term care facilities, skilled nursing, etc.?  Some were very selective about the types of disabilities that they listed and yet you don't need to have a certain type of disability to qualify under the ADA for an accommodation. So it goes through some of that. What we also thought was helpful would be to footnote each of these with real examples from states, including the language that they've used in their policies, to address each of these points. You can see the variation in how some states have done this. That was, hopefully, a helpful resource. We've used it over time as we've worked in new states to encourage better policy adoption.  That’s a really big undertaking. And right before we started our interview, you mentioned that there's been some updates as of yesterday. Do you want to share?  Tauna Szymanski  Sure. This was specifically about hospitals. The Patient GS situation was really about hospital visitation. And we had been hearing increasingly from folks in nursing homes and institutions, for lack of a better term, and intermediate care facilities, assisted living facilities, skilled nursing facilities, about similar issues about people not being able to go into to visit and then to support. We always start by emphasizing that distinction between a visitor and a disability support person, because in a lot of these facilities, there is actually a legal right to visitation. But more strongly, under disability rights laws, there's this separate and independent right to effective communication and certain disability related support. There was no real guidance about those rights in these other types of settings at the time, and so we, along with several other disability and aging groups, spent a good chunk of last summer pushing CMS, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, to issue guidance on those rights in those settings.  And finally, in September of last year, we got some guidance about nursing home visitation. Then in January of 2021, we got guidance about visitation on intermediate care facilities, and psychiatric residential treatment facilities. Yesterday, just an hour after we presented about the nursing home and ICF visitation, HHS and CMS actually issued an update on the nursing home guidance on visitation and made it stronger, talking about the role of vaccinations and that sort of thing. So essentially, all of these other guidance documents include that additional language about reminding those who run those facilities that that if a patient with a disability requires an outside support person to access the services and healthcare options that are provided in those settings, they're entitled to do so regardless of those no visitor policies. Some of the documentation and legal aspects can be overwhelming for families to navigate. That's why you put in place this COVID-19 Communication Rights Toolkit, which is very accessible. I urge all our listeners to share the link with families which we'll have in the show notes Could you explain what it is?  Tauna Szymanski  This was put together in March very, very quickly. It tries to simply lay out what those communication rights are in health care settings. Specifically, it includes a section about how you protect those rights and assert them. It includes links to the three different laws, which are the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. For advocates and lawyers in health care, hospitals, and whatever, they can click on the links to see the actual laws if they want to read them. And then it includes additional resources, like the Evaluation Framework. We included various memos and links to the guidance for state policies that we've compiled on our website. At the very back, there is something that you can actually print out designed to be a form that you present to the hospital when you're being admitted which says: here's my name, here's my emergency contact, here's the support I need to communicate. It could be this person, it could be this AAC device, I need wait time, please be patient, etc. It cites the law and asks people to put this document on my chart and you can keep a (copy of the) document. It’s designed to be used before you need to go to the hospital. We’ve heard that folks are actually doing it that way. Lots of folks have this filled out just in case they have to go to the hospital at some point. We have it translated in both Spanish and Chinese.   Maybe one of the tips for introducing this to a family, if a client has an upcoming surgery, is to refer them to this Communication Rights Toolkit, and encourage them to print out the Communication Rights form, right? Do you have any specific stories you want to share about its use at a hospital that's come back to your organization? Tauna Szymanski  I haven't heard long detailed stories about its use. But I have seen on many occasions, on Facebook, Twitter and in emails, that folks have brought this information to the hospital and have used it successfully. So that's been very gratifying. I was truly inspired and grateful for the work that your small organization has been able to accomplish during this time when so many families have spoken about feelings of loss and fear about not being able to advocate for their loved one in a situation that is already very, very scary. And it's just been compelling to see the difference that this organization has made.  I want to express my appreciation to Bob and to you, Tauna, for what you've accomplished. Thank you so much. And I hope our listeners will look at the links in the show notes to check out the Communication Toolkit and the Hospital Framework.  Also, in the show notes, Bob, you showed me yesterday that, as of March 3, you posted a video on the history of communication rights. I only had a chance to start watching it and I can hardly wait to finish it. I urge everybody to check out that video. It is going to be an amazing tool for sharing the importance and value of the history of bringing communication rights to people. Thank you for that. As we wrap this up, when we finally did get to have a tech check after creating a second meeting without the password, we started talking about Springsteen because I saw that noted in your bio, and I couldn't resist.  You liking Springsteen makes a lot of sense to me, because at heart, he is really a storyteller. It seems to me, that you too, are very much a storyteller and you understand deeply the value of being able to tell your story. I asked if you had a favorite Springsteen song that you'd like to share?  Bob Williams  As I told you before, this is the impossible question to answer. I first heard Bruce in 1972. I believe he was the warm up act for Richie Haven. But I was too focused on the redhead college student with me to give him any notice. Soon after, some friends turned me on to the stuff he did on albums, like Greetings from Asbury Park, and The Wild, the Innocent and the E Street Shuffle. So like every old friend, we have been through and continue to go through a lot together. In trying to make sense of this world, each in our own way, trying not to be blinded by the light. And to find some ways to make things more right. So you're telling me there is no one song? Bob Williams  No, but here are a few. I love ‘Jungleland’ for its artistry. As the man wails, it is a ballet being fought out in the alley. Clarence’s saxophone solo at the end always takes me places where I crave to be. ‘Racing in the Streets’ also calls out to me. It reminds me of my dad. His work ethic, his drive. The way he lived his life and expected us to do the same.  But if I really need my fix from the Boss, I listen to the ‘Ghost of Tom Joad’ and ‘Youngstown’. The injustices Bruce challenges in many of his songs are as real, if not deeper, today than ever. But so are the yearnings they inspire. That is the fix I keep going back for. Of course, I can belt out ‘Thunder Road’ and ‘Rosalita’, just about anything he sings, with the best of them. Absolutely ranks you as a top fan. I agree with you deeply. So thank you for sharing that answer.  I want to thank both of you for sharing your expertise today with our Aphasia Access members. I've learned a lot. And I'm hoping that we're able to get the good work that your organization is doing out to a lot more people. So thank you so much. References and Resources CommunicationFIRST COVID-19 Guidance https://communicationfirst.org/covid-19/covid-19-guidance/ https://secureservercdn.net/166.62.108.22/izh.66f.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/FINAL-Disability-Org-Guidance-on-COVID-19-Hospital-Visitation-Policies-updated-100720.pdf Americans with Disabilities Act featuring Bob Williams https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLg533x8vKE&feature=youtu.be CommunicationFIRST Covid-19 Communication Rights Toolkit https://communicationfirst.org/covid-19/

Healthcare data breaches and the possibility of sanctions from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) are a rightfully terrifying possibility for healthcare administrators.But one hospital, MD Anderson Cancer Center, recently fought back and won. Reporting on the outcome of the decision handed down by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals during the next live broadcast of Monitor Mondays will be Dr. John K. Hall, a physician and attorney. Hall, founder of the Aegis Group, will provide an analysis of the case, while offering valuable lessons that can be learned from it.Other segments to be featured during the live broadcast include the following:Legislative Update: Former Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) official Matthew Albright, now chief legislative affairs officer for Zelis, will report on the status of healthcare legislation associated with the current COVID-19 pandemic.Risky Business: Healthcare attorney David Glaser, shareholder in the law offices of Fredrikson & Bryon, will join the broadcast with his trademark segment, reporting on legal implications facing healthcare providers.Monday Rounds: Ronald Hirsch, MD, vice president of R1 RCM, will be making his Monday Rounds with another installment of his popular segment. RAC Report: Healthcare attorney Knicole Emanuel, a partner at the law firm of Practus, will report the Monitor Mondays lead story.

Roger Severino, Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), joins Tom Shakely and Noah Brandt to discuss civil rights, EPPC's HHS Accountability Project, and rights of conscience. Before joining the EPPC, Roger was the Director of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), where he led a team of more than 250, responsible for enforcing our nation’s civil rights, conscience and religious freedom, and health information privacy laws. Roger Severino at the Ethics and Public Policy Center https://eppc.org/author/roger_severino/ Roger Severino on Twitter https://twitter.com/RogerSeverino_

Jon Moore, Clearwater, and Iliana Peters, Polsinelli PC, talk about what type of risk analysis the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) expects for compliance with the HIPAA Security Rule. The podcast discusses why it’s important to perform risk analysis at the information system level and the implications of not performing a comprehensive, enterprise-wide risk analysis. The speakers also make practical recommendations to help organizations evolve their approach to analyzing and responding to information security risk. Sponsored by Clearwater.

In this episode the first half the sisters and their guest Tony discuss how we are being assimilated, data collection. The second half they talk about how to keep your self positive and protect your self in waking hours and in sleep time. What do you think is happening to the HIPAA Law, along with our rights? They did not go into details about this but we feel it is important for people to know about our loss of rights of our health privacy. So the following paragraph is taken directly from the HIPAA website https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special-topics/hipaa-covid19/index.html and a file titled "Notification of Enforcement Discretion for Business Associates". "As a matter of enforcement discretion, effective immediately, the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) will exercise its enforcement discretion and will not impose potential penalties for violations of certain provisions of the HIPAA Privacy Rule against covered health care providers or their business associates for uses and disclosures of protected health information by business associates for public health and health oversight activities during the COVID–19 nationwide public health emergency." Music by Barra Mackinnon, and Five Finger Death Punch --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/midnight-margaritas/message

New Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) findings were released, but the U.S. Department of Education (ED) isn't talking about what the data means for students of color. Plus, Senate Republicans fail to pass their “skinny” COVID-19 stimulus package as a more comprehensive deal eludes the White House and House Democrats. With prospects for an agreement prior to the election fading, will schools ever get the relief they need? Last week, ED released findings from the long-delayed 2017–18 Civil Rights Data Collection, a biennial survey of the nation’s public elementary and secondary schools. ED’s analysis focuses on two areas: (1) reports of sexual violence and (2) the use of physical restraint and seclusion against students. Specifically, elementary and secondary schools reported a more than 50 percent increase in reports of sexual violence during the 2017–18 school year compared to the 2015–16 school year. The agency’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) said it is unclear what drove the increase in reported allegations. Additionally, the report highlights that students with disabilities—and specifically Black students with disabilities—were disproportionately subject to seclusion and restraint. Unfortunately, that is one of the only findings that focuses specifically on the school experiences of students of color. While the CRDC includes many data points that can be used by advocates and researchers to uncover inequities in the nation’s schools, the Office for Civil Rights provided next to no explanation of what the data means for Black and Latino students, reinforcing a troubling trend from this administration. In a statement, Alliance for Excellent Education (All4Ed) President and CEO Deb Delisle explained, “After taking far too long to release this information, the Trump administration did so without providing much-needed analysis to go along with millions of data points. This follows an insidious history of this administration’s denials of systemic racism, ranging from their rescission of OCR’s guidance on school discipline and school integration, to the recent executive order prohibiting federal agencies and contractors from engaging in trainings that promote diversity.” As we covered before on Federal Flash, ED delayed the latest CRDC by a year, citing uncertainty and unreliability of data collection due to the coronavirus, and also is planning to cease collecting a number of critical equity data points, including questions related to school funding and experienced educators. We’ll keep you posted on these efforts. COVID-19 Relief Remains Stalled With time slipping away to strike a deal on a COVID-19 relief package before the election, Senate Republicans tried again to pass a “skinny” version of their stimulus bill, the Health, Economic Assistance, Liability Protection, and Schools (HEALS) Act. As a reminder, this proposal has a lower $500 billion price tag than the $2.2 trillion Health and Emergency Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act passed by House Democrats. The Senate plan also includes less relief for education: $70 billion for public and private schools, with two-thirds of that contingent on schools offering in-person classes. However, Democrats blocked the measure, and it failed to pass the Senate floor. In the meantime, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin continue work on a more comprehensive bill, but major sticking points remain. As we covered onFederal Flash, President Trump abruptly sidelined negotiations with Democrats after they unveiled the new HEROES Act earlier this fall. But conversations restarted just a few days later after the President got an earful from Republican lawmakers who were wary of abandoning action to boost the economy in an election year. Although Pelosi and Mnuchin have made progress on some fronts, such as provisions related to COVID -19 testing, many Senate Republicans remain opposed to a large $2 trilli...

On the heels of recent significant Office for Civil Rights (OCR) breach settlements—one related to the Protected Health Information of 6 million individuals and an allegation related to systemic noncompliance with HIPAA rules—Foley Partner Jennifer Rathburn talks with Brian Resler a Vice President for Engagement for Stroz Friedberg, an Aon company, to discuss practical and approachable steps you need to take to tweak your cybersecurity program to be better prepared for any potential attacks. Jennifer Rathburn focuses her practice on helping clients prepare for and respond to data breaches, as well as complying with HIPAA, 42 CFR Part 2, GDPR, GLBA, FERPA, and other federal and state privacy laws. She is also co-founder of the Midwest Cyber Security Alliance, a nonprofit, nonpartisan collaboration of stakeholders focused on promoting awareness of hot cybersecurity and privacy issues as well as advocating for more effective solutions. Brian Resler manages teams assisting clients in responding to data breach and cybersecurity incidents, developing and implementing information security programs, and conducting digital forensics for litigation. Prior to Stroz Friedberg, Brian spent about 25 years as a State and Federal Prosecutor, most recently as a litigation supervisor for the U.S. Department of Justice Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, supervising and advising on cyber and intellectual property prosecutions around the country.

Schools, colleges, and universities understandably have been scrambling to implement the new sexual harassment rule for Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. In addition to that herculean task, educational leaders also have been contending with challenges from COVID-19, reopening plans, racial equity issues, and many other vital concerns. It’s no wonder that you might have missed several essential changes to Title IX that are unrelated to sexual harassment. But school leaders at all levels of education must understand these changes and the resulting impacts they should have on practices in the new school year. In this episode, we discuss all of the hot Title IX issues you may have missed but can’t ignore. Topics covered include: The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR)’s rescission of Title IX guidance documents, including the 2001 Sexual Harassment Guidance and the 2015 resources for Title IX Coordinators, OCR’s publication of letters addressing the rights of LGBTQ students under Title IX in response to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision recognizing rights for LGBTQ employees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and OCR’s recent update to its Case Processing Manual (the CPM).

The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) which overlooks HIPAA made a recommendation in their Summer Cybersecurity Newsletter that the industry has been recommending for years. This epsiode goes into the recommendation and talks about the disconnect between security recommendations based on industry. Be aware, be safe. Become A Patron! Patreon Page *** Support the podcast with a cup of coffee *** - Ko-Fi Security In Five —————— Where you can find Security In Five —————— Security In Five Reddit Channel r/SecurityInFive Binary Blogger Website Security In Five Website Security In Five Podcast Page - Podcast RSS Twitter @securityinfive iTunes, YouTube, TuneIn, iHeartRadio,

In today's News: A church fights an abortion mandate A Seattle-area church filed its opening brief yesterday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, asking for reversal of a lower court decision that dismissed the church’s lawsuit against the state of Washington. The lawsuit challenges a state law forcing churches to cover elective abortions in their health insurance plans. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent Cedar Park Assembly of God, challenging the constitutionality of the state’s mandate requiring the church to cover abortion if it provides its staff members maternity coverage in their group health insurance. As a result of the state’s mandate, the church’s insurance carrier inserted surgical abortion coverage directly into the church’s health plan. The insurer indicated that it would remove the offensive coverage if a court were to hold that the state law is unconstitutional. The lawsuit, Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland v. Kreidler, challenges the constitutionality of Washington State Senate Bill 6219, legislation signed into law in March 2018. The legislation requires Cedar Park to provide coverage for abortion if the church also offers maternity care coverage to its employees, or face fines and criminal penalties, including imprisonment. Department of Education defends female athletes The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to write transgenderism into federal nondiscrimination law does not create a right for gender-confused male students to compete against actual girls, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) concluded in a letter explaining how the divisive ruling factors into its own judgment. The Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference’s (CIAC’s) official handbook says the conference “Shall defer to the determination of the student and his or her local school regarding gender identification,” without any conditions pertaining to physical transitions or testosterone levels. This has led to biologically male competitors consistently outperforming actual females and depriving them of numerous opportunities, according to a complaint filed by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) on behalf of runners Selina Soule, Alana Smith and Chelsea Mitchell. The OCR has weighed in on the side of the runners, concluding that the CIAC policy violates the civil rights of female athletes, denying them “benefits and opportunities, including advancing to the finals in events, higher level competitions, awards, medals, recognition, and the possibility of greater visibility to colleges and other benefits.” Abortion lobby sues The abortion lobby filed a lawsuit Monday to block another provision of a sweeping pro-life law enacted in Tennessee this year, this time targeting language requiring that abortion-minded women seeking abortion pills be given information on how to reverse them should they change their mind. The omnibus law already faces legal challenge over its ban on abortion once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, and the latest suit, brought by planned parenthood, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), challenges the requirement that women seeking a chemical abortion (the “abortion pill”) to be made aware of the abortion pill reversal (APR technique).

HIPAA security compliance isn’t talked about often in the dental community. But the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) can and are investigating dental offices. If you’re not properly or adequately protecting your patient’s protected health information (PHI) you’re at risk of a hefty fine. In this episode of Talking With The Toothcop, I talk about the HIPAA security rule, business associate agreements, and how a data breach can impact your practice.  Outline of This Episode [1:20] HIPAA Security Compliance [4:43] The HIPAA Security Rule [9:00] Consistently work toward compliance [10:13] The Business Associate agreement  [14:57] Have adequate cyber insurance in place [17:38] Will OCR hit practices harder because of COVID? HIPAA Security Compliance: What a breach looks like I received an email from OCR (AKA the HIPAA Police) titled: “Small healthcare provider fails to implement multiple HIPAA security rule requirements.” So I opened it. Essentially, Metropolitan Community Health Services has to pay a $25,000 fine to OCR and has to adopt a corrective action plan to settle violations. Why? Because on June 9th, 2011—9 years ago—Metro filed a breach report that affected 1,263 patients. The OCR investigation revealed long-standing non-compliance. Metro failed to conduct risk-analysis and failed to implement any security rule policies, procedures, or training until 2016. Providers are supposed to safeguard their patient’s information.  The moral of the story? We need to implement measures so we don’t have to report a breach affecting 500+ people. This is a classic example of where prevention could’ve made a world of difference.  The HIPAA Security Rule The HIPAA privacy rule states that you must have agreements with vendors who have access to information, train your staff properly, and establish notice of privacy practices (how we can use and disclose patient information). The HIPAA Security rule is what people seem to have trouble with. It deals exclusively with the security of protected health information. One of the key components of the rule is to have someone appointed as the security officer. They establish access control for authorized users and set up firewalls, firmware, antivirus programs, updates, etc. They are tasked with risk analysis and mitigation: #1 Identify the potential threats and risks to PHI #2 Address the higher-risk or potential risks areas This is where dental practices have significant gaps and fall short. OCR started conducting audits of covered entities and found that more than ¾ of providers had not addressed security issues or implemented security measures to address the rule. What should security training include? What issues do I see in dental offices? Listen to find out! The Business Associate Agreement You need to understand who your business associates are: Who are the vendors you work with who have access to your patient information? IT people? Coaches or consultants? Software providers? Identify those business relationships and make sure you have a signed Business Associate Agreement (BAA) with them. It’s required before they gain access to your patient information.  Let’s drive the point home: A data backup service was audited by OCR and they were connected back to a medical practice. The medical practice couldn’t produce a BAA—and got slapped with a $30,000 fine. It’s a big deal. There was another case in Florida: A former employee of a business had access to patient PHI. A BAA wasn’t in place and they were fined $150,000.  I don’t want to scare you—I want to motivate you. I want you to understand the importance of addressing these issues. How many tooth fillings, root canals, and crowns would you have to do to cover a $30,000 or $150,000 fine? The preventative measures are worth every minute of your time.  How does cyber insurance play a role? Will they cover fines? Keep listening... OCR takes their job seriously Very few dentists are in compliance. If they were audited by the OCR it would be a blood-bath. While perfection cannot be expected, there’s room for improvement for the industry. You must show consistent and periodic effort. OCR just loves to kick people’s butts, pandemic or not. They are proactive on the educational side and actively involved from a preventative standpoint. But they will take heavy-handed action when there is a breach of compliance. It is so important to protect your patient’s information. Hear all about it in this episode! Resources & People Mentioned Office for Civil Rights (OCR) HIPAA Security Rule Connect With Duane https://www.dentalcompliance.com/ toothcop(at)dentalcompliance.com On Facebook On Twitter On LinkedIn On Youtube

This week on Generation Justice, we learned from “Operation Legend Town Hall.'' In this panel, we hear about the threat that Operation Legend poses to our rights and liberties, how it can impact our community, and the perspectives of legal advocates and community organizers regarding this federal operation. The panel featured: Pamelya Herndon, Exec. Director & CEO of KWH Law Center; NM State Representative Moe Maestas; Jim Harvey, Exec. Director of ABQ Center of Peace & Justice; and, Torri Jacobus, managing Assistant City Attorney & Director of CABQ Office of Civil Rights (OCR). The panel is moderated by Devont’e Kurt Watson. The Operation Legend Town Hall was organized by Devon’te Kurt Watson and Nichole Rogers and was originally broadcasted online. You can find more information here: https://bit.ly/2En1Atu Catch us live every Sunday @ 7:00pm on 89.9 KUNM OR stream on KUNM.org!

In this week’s episode, Rebecca Schaefer and Hannah Maroney discuss a string of recent HIPAA enforcement actions which demonstrate that the HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR), the agency tasked with enforcing HIPAA, is increasingly focused on ensuring that affiliated hospitals within a health system, typically comprising an Affiliated Covered Entity (ACE), have HIPAA business associate agreements in place with the parent corporation to allow for the lawful exchange of PHI. The presenters discuss the circumstances in which a business associate agreement may be required, and address several questions regarding related ACE organizational considerations. Presenters: Rebecca Schaefer, Hannah Maroney

President of the Arc of the United States, Fred Misilo, Jr., speaks about the mission of The Arc and its roots as a civil rights organization fighting for the rights and inclusion of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. We discuss several initiatives such as: Criminal Justice, Health, Employment, and Travel. Learn how The Arc made national news just days before the recording by joining other advocacy groups in obtaining a resolution from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) around COVID-19 treatment policies for individuals with disabilities. It was a resolution that resonated across the country as other states have similar complaints filed against them. Link to The Arc website: https://thearc.org/

In this episode of The Risk Perspective, we are joined by David Holtzman, Executive Advisor at CynergisTek, and industry-recognized HIPAA expert. We are also excited to be joined by a new guest, Andrew Mahler, Senior Manager of Privacy and Compliance Services at CynergisTek. Andrew has a background serving as an Investigator for the U.S Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR).Together, Andrew and David highlight and discuss major HIPAA violations in the past, speak about the importance of OCR regulations and involvement, as well as talk about how HIPAA disclosures to the media have changed during the time of COVID-19. This 34-minute episode deep dives into HIPAA media disclosures and is sure to benefit all listeners from marketing specialists to CISO.Links To Content and Articles:Read David Holtzman's blog 'OCR Warns Hospitals: No News Media in Treatment Areas Without Patient Authorization' written on MAY 27, 2020. David Holtzman was recently quoted in HealthcareInfoSecurity's article 'Inside Job at Clinics: Mobile Phone Used for Fraud', written by Marianne Kolbasuk McGee to discuss potential risks posed by employees inappropriately using personal devices during COVID-19.For a full repository of COVID-19 crisis resources, visit our CTEK COVID-19 Communications page for news, articles, podcasts, and more.Contact us with any questions regarding the regulatory changes during the COVID-19 crisis.

For more information, resources, and transcript visit www.adalive.org/episode80 One of the many aspects of this public health crisis is the limited supply of equipment to treat patients in need. We face shortages of medical equipment and potential shortages of ventilators. Because the coronavirus COVID-19 is a respiratory illness, there is concern that ventilator demand may exceed supply. This will force medical staff to prioritize who gets life-saving treatment. In this special episode of ADA Live!, we will talk with Alison Barkoff and Katheryn Rucker from the Center for Public Representation about rationing of medical care and ensuring the rights of people with disabilities are protected. We will discuss discrimination in medical care, anti-discrimination laws, Office of Civil Rights (OCR) complaints, and many other topics around this critical issue.

In this week’s episode, Hannah Maroney, Cheryl Choice and Steven Pine provide some background on COVID-19 and discuss challenges health care providers may face with respect to the disclosure of protected health information related to COVID-19 patients under HIPAA, as well as recent guidance issued by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) related to such disclosures. Presenters: Hannah Maroney, Cheryl Choice, and Steven Pine Download Presentation Materials

The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is expected to issue in the coming weeks its long-awaited new rules for colleges and other educational institutions to follow in handling allegations of campus sexual harassment and assault. A highly controversial draft of the new rules has almost completed a notice-and-comment process launched in September 2017 by Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. She said that the Obama Administration's OCR's decrees on such matters, and the processes used by virtually all universities, were stacked against accused students, almost all of them male, and often harmed accusers as well.Spurred by judicial decisions and other evidence showing that innocent young men have been railroaded out of college with life-changing, often ruinous consequences, OCR issued its more than 30,000 words of proposed rules and comments in November 2018. The proposals would require numerous procedural safeguards, narrow the definition of sexual harassment, and limit university liability for off-campus events. Dozens of advocacy groups and universities, as well as tens of thousands of individuals, filed more than 120,000 formal comments over the next two months.The vast majority were denunciations of the proposed rules by feminist and victims' rights groups, Democratic legislators and state attorneys general, and universities. The schools have financial and other incentives, including fear of campus activists’ wrath, to oppose more than minimal procedural protections for accused students. They argue that OCR’s proposals – especially those requiring live hearings with cross-examination – would be so traumatic for accusers that most would choose not to report sexual misconduct.But civil liberties advocates, some law professors at Harvard and elsewhere – including a few prominent feminists -- and families of accused students filed strong responses. They argue that the universities’ pattern of presuming guilt and ignoring evidence of innocence is so entrenched that only federal action could bring a modicum of fairness. These commenters cite over 160 federal and state judicial decisions in recent years finding campus rules and bureaucrats alike biased against accused students.Whatever the final rules may say, they are sure to be challenged both in court and in Congress as inconsistent with Title IX, the Constitution, or both.Featuring:- KC Johnson, Professor of History, Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center- Stuart Taylor, Freelance Journalist and Author- [Moderator] Linda Chavez, Chairman, Center for Equal OpportunityVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is expected to issue in the coming weeks its long-awaited new rules for colleges and other educational institutions to follow in handling allegations of campus sexual harassment and assault. A highly controversial draft of the new rules has almost completed a notice-and-comment process launched in September 2017 by Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. She said that the Obama Administration's OCR's decrees on such matters, and the processes used by virtually all universities, were stacked against accused students, almost all of them male, and often harmed accusers as well.Spurred by judicial decisions and other evidence showing that innocent young men have been railroaded out of college with life-changing, often ruinous consequences, OCR issued its more than 30,000 words of proposed rules and comments in November 2018. The proposals would require numerous procedural safeguards, narrow the definition of sexual harassment, and limit university liability for off-campus events. Dozens of advocacy groups and universities, as well as tens of thousands of individuals, filed more than 120,000 formal comments over the next two months.The vast majority were denunciations of the proposed rules by feminist and victims' rights groups, Democratic legislators and state attorneys general, and universities. The schools have financial and other incentives, including fear of campus activists’ wrath, to oppose more than minimal procedural protections for accused students. They argue that OCR’s proposals – especially those requiring live hearings with cross-examination – would be so traumatic for accusers that most would choose not to report sexual misconduct.But civil liberties advocates, some law professors at Harvard and elsewhere – including a few prominent feminists -- and families of accused students filed strong responses. They argue that the universities’ pattern of presuming guilt and ignoring evidence of innocence is so entrenched that only federal action could bring a modicum of fairness. These commenters cite over 160 federal and state judicial decisions in recent years finding campus rules and bureaucrats alike biased against accused students.Whatever the final rules may say, they are sure to be challenged both in court and in Congress as inconsistent with Title IX, the Constitution, or both.Featuring:- KC Johnson, Professor of History, Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center- Stuart Taylor, Freelance Journalist and Author- [Moderator] Linda Chavez, Chairman, Center for Equal OpportunityVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

What are some of the security measures you need to have in place to protect your practice? In today’s day and age, security breaches can come from many different directions. In this episode of Talking with the Toothcop, Andrea and I will lay out some ways you can protect your business. From security breaches to controlled substance regulations—we’ve got you covered.  Outline of This Episode [0:20] Cyber Ransom Attacks [4:55] What does a breach mean for you? [8:30] Prepare for potential breaches.  [13:20] HIPAA security and privacy officer [14:40] Bootcamp will cover liability and compliance [17:50] How to prepare for and handle “Never Events” [23:10] Controlled substance rules and regulations [27:15] Change in DEA regulations [28:10] Controlled substance storage [30:30] Stop over-prescribing antibiotics Cyber attacks are the real deal It’s a new era, and cyberattacks are becoming more prevalent. A hacker will infect your system with an encryption virus, and to regain access you have to pay a ransom. This isn’t just a thing happening on TV shows anymore. It’s something that has to be investigated by the FBI, reported to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), and potentially even media outlets. Is there anything you can do to prepare? What do you are attacked? Invest in a great IT company that will answer any questions you may have. Obtain adequate cyber-insurance coverage. Have legal counsel in place that you can call if it’s ever necessary. Prepare as well as you can—make sure you have more than adequate website security.  Don’t let your practice be compromised and watch your reputation take a nose-dive. Do everything you possibly can to protect your practice and your clients. We give you a few options in this episode! HIPAA breaches and how to prevent them If you do indeed experience a breach of protected health information, you must have systems in place to handle the situation. You need a designated privacy officer and security officer. If you’ve done your due diligence and have systems in place, it can be taken into consideration if there is an investigation. A forensic investigation is recommended (especially in the case of a cyber-attack) to determine the scope of the breach and what information was affected.  Assess where your vulnerabilities may be and take preventative action. Was there a change in technology? Where are your gaps? Don’t simply rely on your IT company telling you that you’re safe—ask questions so that you understand and know you’ve done everything possible.  How to prevent “Never Events” “Never Events”, usually referred to as “Sentinel Events” are unanticipated extraordinary events that incur serious injury, illness, or the death of a patient. Unfortunately, events like these can and do happen (we talk about prevention and preparedness in depth in this episode).  Even if you do everything right and are a great clinician, the litigation and stress involved in the process can be debilitating. You can’t turn back time—but you can be proactive. Have checklists in place to make sure life-saving medical devices are checked regularly. Practice life-saving procedures with your staff. Be prepared for the unexpected.  Controlled substance rules, regulations, and safety measures A state board rule was enacted in Texas eff. September 1st requiring providers to check a patient's substance history before prescribing controlled substances. There are also whispers that a law will be enacted in 2020 that will only allow prescriptions for controlled substances to be done electronically. Do your research now to find a compatible software to have in place by the time this is state law! It’s an added safety measure that will protect you from some liability as well as protect your patient’s life. In the meantime, if you prescribe or utilize controlled substances they must be securely locked up (behind TWO locks and TWO keys). You must have a log to track dispensing that is stored safely with the drugs. Andrea and I talk in detail about security measures, HIPAA breaches, drug regulations and much more so be sure to listen to the whole episode for details! Resources & People Mentioned Allscripts Office for Civil Rights (OCR) Connect With Duane https://www.dentalcompliance.com/ toothcop(at)dentalcompliance.com On Facebook On Twitter On LinkedIn On Youtube

Title IX impacts more than just college athletics. Host Sloan Simmons talks with Michelle Cannon and Stephanie White of Lozano Smith’s Title IX Impact Team about the current status of the law, including the proposed regulations which contain sweeping revisions to existing practices. This conversation explores the depth and breadth of Title IX and provides important insights for all public school administrators in K-12 through college. Show Notes & References 2:02  Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; 34 C.F.R. Part 106 2:47  Office for Civil Rights (OCR) 4:43  Dear Colleague Letters 2001, 2011 (rescinded), 2014 (rescinded) and 2017 5:05  Dear Colleague Letter (September 22, 2017) 5:06  Q & A on Campus Sexual Misconduct (September 2017) 6:02  Interim Measures 13:29  Responsible Employee 19:42  Senate Bill 1375 (2016); Education Code § 221.61 20:46  CSBA Model Policy - Uniform Complaint Procedures (BP/AR 1312.3) 22:06  CSBA Model Policy - Sexual Harassment (BP/AR 5145.7) 29:43  Exception to FERPA 31:09  Preponderance of the Evidence Standard 45:56  Lozano Smith Title IX Toolkit   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast.

The seventh annual Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 8, 2019, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC. The sixth panel discussed "Alphabet Soup: EEOC v. OCR v. DOL OFCCP."This panel will touch on various agency approaches to civil rights issues within administrative agencies. These issues will include but not be limited to, disparate impact analysis, former Attorney General Jeff Session’s rollback of various guidance documents. The panel will have added emphasis on the different approaches taken by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(EEOC), the Office for Civil Rights(OCR), and the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs(DOL OFCCP). The panel will in one sense serve as an update on the administration decisions made in the first two years of the Trump administration, and in another sense offer a foundation upon which to predict what the next two years will bring for civil rights claims under the current administration.* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Featuring:Prof. Gail L. Heriot, Commissioner, United States Commission on Civil Rights; Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of LawHon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of EducationProf. Theodore M. Shaw, Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Civil RightsTimothy Taylor, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy at U.S. Department of LaborModerator: Mr. Erik S. Jaffe, Schaerr Jaffe LLP

The seventh annual Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 8, 2019, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC. The sixth panel discussed "Alphabet Soup: EEOC v. OCR v. DOL OFCCP."This panel will touch on various agency approaches to civil rights issues within administrative agencies. These issues will include but not be limited to, disparate impact analysis, former Attorney General Jeff Session’s rollback of various guidance documents. The panel will have added emphasis on the different approaches taken by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(EEOC), the Office for Civil Rights(OCR), and the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs(DOL OFCCP). The panel will in one sense serve as an update on the administration decisions made in the first two years of the Trump administration, and in another sense offer a foundation upon which to predict what the next two years will bring for civil rights claims under the current administration.* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Featuring:Prof. Gail L. Heriot, Commissioner, United States Commission on Civil Rights; Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of LawHon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of EducationProf. Theodore M. Shaw, Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Civil RightsTimothy Taylor, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy at U.S. Department of LaborModerator: Mr. Erik S. Jaffe, Schaerr Jaffe LLP

What are Gerry and Steve talking about this week? The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) asked for input on their proposal for improving patient access to PHI and the AMA responded with 29 pages of well-crafted sense. Will OCR listen? A red teamer provides some lessons learned after 6 years of penetration testing engagements. The […] The post The AMA and Patient Access, Top 3 Red Team Findings, and University of Washington Medicine Breach appeared first on MUSC Podcasts.

In this episode, Suzanne and Chase review the Office of Civil Rights (OCR, a subdivision of HHS) list of HIPAA violation settlements that occurred in 2018. To lead off, though, Chase breaks down the purpose of the HIPAA privacy and security rules, and what the basic HIPAA requirements are for employers. Suzanne and Chase then discuss several OCR investigations of employer HIPAA violations that eventually led to settlements. Chase breaks down HIPAA violations resulting from several situations. First: a doctor’s response to media inquiries regarding a patient’s complaint. Second: a hospital group that developed policies and procedures, but failed to implement them and later experienced a breach when unencrypted USB drives were lost and an unencrypted computer was stolen. Third: a document retention company that left a box of files containing sensitive information in an unlocked truck in its parking lot. The final case involves hospitals that failed to obtain authorization from patients while filming a TV mini-series. Chase and Suzanne close with a discussion of HIPAA compliance learning points for employers and their group health plans.

There's no better emblem of the complicated evolution of civil rights in America than the implementation of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. Originally passed to ensure equal access to educational resources, Title IX reads as follows:“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”Although a libertarian might bristle at Title IX's financial involvement in education, the statute otherwise seems innocuous — requiring nothing more than equal treatment for students, regardless of gender.Since the 1970s, however, women have not only achieved parity with men in college admissions, they have surpassed men in graduation rates. Thus, the purpose of Title IX seems largely to have been achieved.As the cultural landscape has changed, however, the focus of anti-discrimination efforts has also shifted. After omen could no longer claim discrimination at the admissions level, bureaucrats started to advocate in other areas like athletics, where men traditionally received more resources in accord with their greater interest in sports (especially at the elite level). Most people are familiar with Title IX's equalization of athletics, but in terms of peak controversy, this was a passing phase in the law's evolution.Now, educational institutions have become the prime battleground in a larger culture war that includes the debates over sexual harassment, due process, “rape culture,” and transgender rights. In 2016, Republicans argued that Title IX has been perverted “by bureaucrats — and by the [then] President of the United States — to impose a social and cultural revolution upon the American people.”How did the seemingly uncontroversial notion of non-discrimination has become such a lightning rod in the American culture war?R. Shep Melnick is a professor of American politics at Boston College, where he focuses on the intersection of law and politics. Melnick argues that the current enforcement of Title IX has transformed the act from its original intention by politically motivated bureaucrats. He recently wrote The Transformation of Title IX [@The Brookings Institution Press (2018)] as a response to the partisan vortex that has swallowed rational discourse about the law. Shep joined the show to discuss the problems of overly-zealous administrative lawmaking in the context of the Title IX debate.Dear Colleague: Due Process is DoneThe U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has the authority to issue new rules governing non-discrimination. The Administrative Procedure Act specifies that prior to a rule change, there must be a period for “notice-and-comment” by relevant parties in the educational institutions. The modern controversy hinges around a few legally questionable actions taken by the OCR in its administration of Title IX.In 2011, the Obama administration issued new “guidelines” on sexual harassment to federally-funded universities that bypassed the standard notice-and-comment requirements for such changes. The administration claimed its guidelines constituted mere “clarifications” of earlier policies. In contrast, statements from the administration suggested that it was a sweeping overhaul of the entire campus culture as it relates to sexual harassment complaints. The infamous “Dear Colleague Letter” — directed from the OCR to all universities receiving federal funds — specified that a single sexual harassment complaint could trigger a lengthy investigation of the institution — turning actual victims and the accused into pawns in the larger culture war.Worse, the letter required schools to use the lowest possible standard of evidence (a mere “preponderance”) in deciding the fate of the accused. While not an official criminal proceeding, these campus tribunals often determined whether a student would be marked for life as a sexual predator — effectively denying him his rights to “life, liberty and property” without due process.As K.C. Johnson and Stuart Taylor, authors of The Campus Rape Frenzy wrote on the Volokh Conspiracy blog last year:The letter required universities to allow accusers to appeal not-guilty findings, a form of double jeopardy. It further told schools to accelerate their adjudications, with a recommended 60-day limit. And, perhaps most important, OCR strongly discouraged cross-examination of accusers, given the procedures that most universities employed.— The path to Obama's Dear Colleague Letter, Jan. 31, 2017Perhaps most frighteningly, government publications began to lecture schools on what constitutes a healthy, mutually respectful sexual relationship. Bureaucrats this by redefining sexual harassment as a form of discrimination, but only when the act targets a member of a particular sex. Strangely, a bisexual who is an “equal opportunity” offender — targeting both men and women — does not fall under the purview of Title IX complaints.Melnick notes that the OCR's mandated “sea change,” coupled with the threat of losing federal funding, has given rise to a new bureaucracy of Title IX coordinators at every major university.The Transgender Transformation and Rule by LetterThe second questionable form of Obama-era administrative rule-making seems to have turned the intent of Title IX on its head. New guidelines redefined the word “sex” as it appears in the act to correspond to the gender identity of a student whose rights are being called into question. This legal maneuvering is particularly suspect since the term “gender identity” entered the lexicon as a way to distinguish one's identity from their biological sex.Morever, many Obama-era mandates (e.g., requiring colleges to allow biological males to use women's locker rooms), not only opened the door for novel claims of harassment and discrimination, but took administrative lawmaking to new heights (or depths) of absurdity.The Office of Civil Rights cannot reasonably resolve every discrimination and harassment issue in a sane and apolitical manner from its perch in Washington. President Trump has repealed the Obama guidelines, and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has called for an end of “rule by letter.” Melnick sees this as a rare instance of sound policy and transparency from the Trump administration, but there is always a risk that it will merely flip the script and use the transgender issue to fire up the Republican base's own culture warriors.Here's a preview of my take:If Trump decides to take a page from Obama's playbook, he might further polarize some of the most important civil rights concerns of the day. While some on the left have allowed the persecution of innocent men with dubious claims of a campus “rape culture,” others on the right have sometimes found a convenient scapegoat among individuals who don't map neatly onto either biological sex.No one is arguing that transgender individuals should be denied equal access to educational facilities, and there are valid civil rights concerns that must to be worked out on a case-by-case basis.Whenever strings are attached to federal grants, there is erosion of the American system of federalism and policy experimentation at the state and local level. In this way, Title IX has been abused to impose a one-size-fits-all solution across the nation's universities.The federal government should leave room for different approaches to be tested, and OCR should focus on the basic of civil rights and clear cut cases of discrimination. The courts remain open to remedy situations where schools fail to render a fair decision.For a full and nuanced perspective on the most important civil rights issues of the day, look no further than my show this Sunday with Shep Melnick.

If you are working security in health care organization then you SHOULD be familiar with regular security risk assessments. If not you should because HIPAA requires regular assessments. One free tool to get you started is from the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) called the HIPAA Security Risk Assessment Tool (SRA). For years the tool has been stagnant but that changed this month when version 3 came out and it's a great update. Release Announcement. Product page and download. Be aware, be safe. Don't forget to subscribe to the Security In Five Newsletter. Send in your Security Horror Stories - bblogger@protonmail.com —————— Where you can find Binary Blogger —————— Podcast RSS Twitter @binaryblogger YouTube, Stitcher Email - contactme@binaryblogger.com

Should total knee replacements (TKRs) be performed as inpatient or outpatient procedures? Some facilities are admitting all of them as inpatient while other facilities take a more conservative approach to admission. How are TKRs being handled at your facility? Mary Beth Pace, vice president of care management at Trinity Health and the special guest on this edition of Monitor Mondays, frames the conundrum as a hypothetical patient/caregiver conversation: "we are going to do major surgery on you, but we are not sure if we will keep you after surgery – and oh, by the way, there will be a copay and deductible either way, we don't know which one. But don't worry, it will be a good thing to have your knee in working order again." Tune in to the podcast as she reports on how TKRs are admitted at Trinity. Also reporting on this timely subject is Jeffrey Pilger, MD, a board-certified lead physician advisor affiliated with St. Elizabeth Healthcare Edgewood in Edgewood, Ky. The episode rundown also includes: Monday Rounds: Ronald Hirsch, MD, vice president of R1 Physician Advisory Services, makes his Monday Rounds with another installment of his popular segment. Hot Topics: Monitor Mondays senior correspondent Nancy Beckley, president and CEO for Nancy Beckley and Associates, has all the latest developments on the therapy caps as well as the Monitor Mondays Listener Survey. Office of Civil Rights Report: Rita Bowen, with MRO, is a nationally recognized healthcare privacy expert. Bowen reports on the latest initiatives by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR), including updates on the HIPAA Audit Program, patient access guidance, and resolution agreements. Risky Business: Healthcare attorney David Glaser with Fredrikson & Byron shares another example of a potentially troublesome issue that could pose a risk to your facility. Prior Authorization: Betty Lengyel-Gomez with the Healthcare Administrative Technology Association (HATA) reports on research HATA has conducted to remove barriers to the adoption of prior authorization transactions. Lengyel-Gomez is the industry relations and regulatory compliance director for MedInformatix. Monitor with us™

On January 18, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the creation of a Conscience and Religious Freedom Division in the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR). The next day, HHS also announced a proposed conscience regulation coming out of OCR. Roger Severino, Director of the Office for Civil Rights at HHS, will join us to discuss the establishment and goals of the new division and information about the proposed conscience regulation. Featuring:Roger Severino, Director, Office of Civil Rights (OCR), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On January 18, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the creation of a Conscience and Religious Freedom Division in the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR). The next day, HHS also announced a proposed conscience regulation coming out of OCR. Roger Severino, Director of the Office for Civil Rights at HHS, will join us to discuss the establishment and goals of the new division and information about the proposed conscience regulation. Featuring:Roger Severino, Director, Office of Civil Rights (OCR), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On February 22, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, a dispute involving the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which in exchange for federal funding requires that states provide a “free appropriate public education” to children with certain disabilities. E.F., a child who has a severe form of cerebral palsy, was assisted in various daily activities by her service dog Wonder. Officials at Ezra Eby Elementary School, however, refused to allow Wonder to join E.F. in kindergarten, so her parents (the Frys) proceeded to homeschool her instead. They also filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR), alleging that the exclusion of E.F.’s service dog violated federal disabilities laws, including Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. OCR sided with the Frys and Ezra Eby relented. Concerned about possible resentment from Ezra Eby officials, however, the Frys instead enrolled E.F. in a different elementary school that had welcomed Wonder. The Frys also filed suit against Ezra Eby’s local and regional school districts (and principal) in federal district court, seeking declaratory and monetary relief for the alleged violations of Title II and section 504. The District Court dismissed the suit on the grounds that the Frys had failed first to exhaust administrative procedures available under the IDEA, as required by section 1415(l) of that law. A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding that section 1415(l)’s exhaustion requirement applies whenever the plaintiff’s alleged harms are “educational” in nature. -- The Supreme Court, however, granted certiorari to address confusion in the courts of appeals as to the scope of section 1415(l)’s exhaustion requirement. By a vote of 8-0, the Court vacated the judgment of the Sixth Circuit and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Kagan, the Court held that exhaustion of the administrative procedures established by the IDEA is unnecessary when the gravamen of the plaintiff’s suit is something other than the denial of the IDEA’s core guarantee of a “free appropriate public education.” The Court then remanded the case to the Sixth Circuit for application of that standard to the Frys’ complaint in the first instance: is their complaint fundamentally about denial of a free appropriate public education, or about something else? Justice Kagan’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Thomas joined. -- To discuss the case, we have Daniel Woodring, principal at Woodring Law Firm.

The first full day of HIMSS17 HIPAA had a big session. It featured Deven McGraw, Deputy Director for Health Information Privacy at the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR).  She is also Acting Chief Privacy Officer for the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC).  Clearly, it was one of the sessions at the top of the list for us to attend.  We got there early enough to be perched on the front row.  In this episode, we review what McGraw covered in her session and our thoughts on it. For more details and timestamps go to HelpMeWithHIPAA.com/93

Part I: What the Dear Colleague Letter Says and Why It is Important The Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) issued guidance to schools clarifying their responsibilities and how they should be helping students with ADHD. If your child has attention or behavioral challenges at school you may be curious about 504 plans and what the OCR guidance means.

Part I: What the Dear Colleague Letter Says and Why It is Important The Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) issued guidance to schools clarifying their responsibilities and how they should be helping students with ADHD. If your child has attention or behavioral challenges at school you may be curious about 504 plans and what the OCR guidance means.

Ransomware and HIPAA have been a topic on the podcast multiple times. They are some of our most popular episodes, in fact.  Recently, we realized we haven't discussed the OCR guidance on ransomware and HIPAA.  On July 11, 2016, HHS.gov featured a new post from Jocelyn Samuels the Director of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR).  The title is catchy: Your Money or Your PHI: New Guidance on Ransomware. This episode is a review of that post and the fact sheet with OCR guidance on ransomware and HIPAA that the post announced. . For more information http://HelpMeWithHIPAA.com/76

In this seminar, the recent efforts by the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) to enforce Title IX policy are considered in the broader context of unsuccessful attempts to establish protection of sexual violence as a civil right in the United States. OCR enforcement has stimulated both praise for its bold determination to address an epidemic of sexual violence on college campuses and criticism for its capacious exercise of administrative power. Bumiller reframes this debate by considering how these regulatory measures are a new chapter in a varied and complex story about the effectiveness of public enforcement of civil rights statutes through the combination of administrative and judicial action. Her work questions whether over reliance on public agency enforcement potentially weakens the participatory and democratic effects of private action. She also examines how current federal regulations regarding Title IX continue a pattern that over emphasizes criminal justice priorities. Speaker: Kristin Bumiller, George Daniel Olds Professor in Economic and Social Institutions; Chair of Political Science, Amherst College

Title: “Antisemitism, Higher Education, and the Law” (Part 1) Date: December 3, 2013 Speaker: Kenneth Marcus Affiliation: President and General Counsel, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. Location: Harvard University Conveners: Dr. Charles Asher Small, Founder and Executive Director, Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP) Charles Freilich, Senior Fellow, International Security Program, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School Description: Kenneth Marcus examines the decisions by the United States Office of Education for Civil Rights (OCR), which simultaneously issued four rulings dismissing major cases regarding antisemitism pending before it. The decisions left many wondering whether the body is serious about dealing with allegations of antisemitism. He notes that the OCR is one of the most important federal institutions set with ensuring non-discrimination in educational institutions and therefore asks how all of the cases dealing with antisemitism were closed. Marcus goes on to explain that while the agency deals with all other types of discrimination, it does not deal with religion. Religious discrimination is therefore not prohibited. Marcus makes the case that while some antisemitism is religious, other forms are racial and ethnic. He therefore makes the case that while a group may have religious characteristics, it does not divest the OCR of its jurisdiction that it would otherwise have.

Title: “Antisemitism, Higher Education, and the Law” (Part 2) Date: December 3, 2013 Speaker: Kenneth Marcus Affiliation: President and General Counsel, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. Location: Harvard University Conveners: Dr. Charles Asher Small, Founder and Executive Director, Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP) Charles Freilich, Senior Fellow, International Security Program, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School Description: Kenneth Marcus examines the decisions by the United States Office of Education for Civil Rights (OCR), which simultaneously issued four rulings dismissing major cases regarding antisemitism pending before it. The decisions left many wondering whether the body is serious about dealing with allegations of antisemitism. He notes that the OCR is one of the most important federal institutions set with ensuring non-discrimination in educational institutions and therefore asks how all of the cases dealing with antisemitism were closed. Marcus goes on to explain that while the agency deals with all other types of discrimination, it does not deal with religion. Religious discrimination is therefore not prohibited. Marcus makes the case that while some antisemitism is religious, other forms are racial and ethnic. He therefore makes the case that while a group may have religious characteristics, it does not divest the OCR of its jurisdiction that it would otherwise have.

In 2010, the Center for Public Integrity reported that victims of sexual misconduct on campus face “a frustrating search for justice.” On April 4, 2011, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a guidance document about sexual violence on campuses, setting standards for what universities must do in order to comply with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972’s prohibition of sex discrimination in education. In the years that followed, students in many universities brought complaints against their institutions for failing to respond appropriately to reported rapes. The OCR itself initiated many more investigations; as of August 2015, 129 universities, including many of the most prominent in the country, were under investigation. Others have already agreed to settlements. As universities have adopted policies in the name of meeting the OCR’s guidance, however, a powerful backlash has arisen. In a few highly publicized cases, accusations have been rebutted by later evidence. The policies adopted by some universities have been sharply criticized by faculty, most prominently at both Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania, where large numbers of professors of law raised concerns about due process for accused students. Some of the critics have been among the best known feminist and women’s rights scholars in the country. How can justice and fairness best be served when a person claims to be sexually victimized by a fellow member of a university community? What is the proper role of the university? How can the rights of victim and accused be not just balanced but maintained? The question is roiling campuses across the country. Ours is not the only campus where it is the topic for the 2015 Constitution Day program. We are very glad to welcome two exceedingly qualified speakers to discuss the topic. Howard Kallem J.D. served for nineteen years in the D.C. Regional Office of the Office for Civil Rights, 15 of them as chief regional attorney, before becoming Title IX Compliance Coordinator at the University of North Carolina in 2013 and then Director of Title IX Compliance at Duke University in 2014. Before joining the OCR, he served for 14 years with the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Few speakers have similar standing and experience to address the reasons for the OCR’s policy and universities’ responses. Cynthia Grant Bowman, J.D., Ph.D., is the Dorothea S. Clarke Professor of Law at Cornell University. She was Professor of Law and Gender Studies at Northwestern University before joining the faculty at Cornell. She has published widely on issues involving the law and women, including women in the legal profession, sexual harassment, and legal remedies for adult survivors of childhood sex abuse. She also published one of the earliest texts on feminist legal theory, Feminist Jurisprudence, which is now in its fourth edition with co-authors. Few speakers have as much standing from which to criticize the policy and its implementation.