New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024

[nickys]

It's the idea of personal health information being protected. There is no information if the organization in question even is HIPAA compliant.

This part jumped out at me.

And to clarify, I’m talking now about the UK. If an organisation gives a discount to those with a disability, like a discounted membership of a zoo, an organisation, cinema ticket etc, they typically require a letter confirming receipt of a disability benefit.

At no point do they ask what the disability is.

Other accommodations such as an accessible seat are usually referred to as “wheelchair accessible” - since that’s why you would need one. And they state there is room for one carer, other people in the party will sit elsewhere. That’s easy enough to enforce without knowing what the condition is. And I see no need why someone who has autism would need one.

What I can see an issue with would be maybe if someone with Cerebral Palsy needed an accesssible seat. I suspect in that case they might need to speak to the venue and ask if they could book one. In that case they are voluntarily discussing their condition to the venue.

Would any of those situations be permitted under ADA?

Interestingly DLP take a similar kind of approach, at least for the Priority Pass.

A Priority Pass is for people who are “registered as disabled”. To get it, the “proof” required for a guest from the UK is essentially confirmation of receipt of a disability benefit.

An Easy Access card is for those who have one of a numbered list of conditions. And the proof for everyone is a medical certificate from the last 3 months stating what number from the list you have.

Thats a bit nearer to needing to disclose a condition, but the categories aren’t specific . They do seem to indicate these are nationally recognised categories.

Neither accept a letter of diagnosis as proof though. So again, they don’t require you give them medical data about yourself.

 

[Drdcm]

This part jumped out at me.

And to clarify, I’m talking now about the UK. If an organisation gives a discount to those with a disability, like a discounted membership of a zoo, an organisation, cinema ticket etc, they typically require a letter confirming receipt of a disability benefit.

At no point do they ask what the disability is.

Other accommodations such as an accessible seat are usually referred to as “wheelchair accessible” - since that’s why you would need one. And they state there is room for one carer, other people in the party will sit elsewhere. That’s easy enough to enforce without knowing what the condition is. And I see no need why someone who has autism would need one.

What I can see an issue with would be maybe if someone with Cerebral Palsy needed an accesssible seat. I suspect in that case they might need to speak to the venue and ask if they could book one. In that case they are voluntarily discussing their condition to the venue.

Would any of those situations be permitted under ADA?

Interestingly DLP take a similar kind of approach, at least for the Priority Pass.

A Priority Pass is for people who are “registered as disabled”. To get it, the “proof” required for a guest from the UK is essentially confirmation of receipt of a disability benefit.

An Easy Access card is for those who have one of a numbered list of conditions. And the proof for everyone is a medical certificate from the last 3 months stating what number from the list you have.

Thats a bit nearer to needing to disclose a condition, but the categories aren’t specific . They do seem to indicate these are nationally recognised categories.

Neither accept a letter of diagnosis as proof though. So again, they don’t require you give them medical data about yourself.

When I write letters it is rare that I have to disclose the diagnosis. A letter stating what accommodations are needed is sufficient with the exception of employer disability stuff and long as it isn’t related to a government benefit.

Also, I’m not sure HIPAA really applies in this situation. Covered entities are pretty specific and in general have to do with direct healthcare providers and insurers. According to HHS website:

“Does the HIPAA Privacy Rule prevent customers or clients of a business from disclosing whether they have received a COVID-19 vaccine?

No. The Privacy Rule does not prevent any individual from disclosing whether that individual has been vaccinated against COVID-19 or any other disease. The Privacy Rule does not apply to individuals’ disclosures about their own health information. It applies only to covered entities10 and, to some extent their business associates.11 Therefore, the Privacy Rule does not apply when an individual tells another person, such as a colleague or business owner, about their own vaccination status.”

This applies to businesses who required proof of vaccination for COVID, so isn’t necessarily directly applicable. But in theory the information would be handled the same way because they didn’t change HIPAA for evidence of vaccination.

Lastly, in this situation the individual would be providing the information or they would allow the release of information, so HIPAA wouldn’t apply in general anyway.

The real question is whether or not this is considered legal per ADA guidelines, which are unfortunately not as black and white as people believe because it relates to “reasonable”ness. I don’t know how this would go.

 

[DisneyCane]

When I write letters it is rare that I have to disclose the diagnosis. A letter stating what accommodations are needed is sufficient with the exception of employer disability stuff and long as it isn’t related to a government benefit.

Also, I’m not sure HIPAA really applies in this situation. Covered entities are pretty specific and in general have to do with direct healthcare providers and insurers. According to HHS website:

“Does the HIPAA Privacy Rule prevent customers or clients of a business from disclosing whether they have received a COVID-19 vaccine?

No. The Privacy Rule does not prevent any individual from disclosing whether that individual has been vaccinated against COVID-19 or any other disease. The Privacy Rule does not apply to individuals’ disclosures about their own health information. It applies only to covered entities10 and, to some extent their business associates.11 Therefore, the Privacy Rule does not apply when an individual tells another person, such as a colleague or business owner, about their own vaccination status.”

This applies to businesses who required proof of vaccination for COVID, so isn’t necessarily directly applicable. But in theory the information would be handled the same way because they didn’t change HIPAA for evidence of vaccination.

Lastly, in this situation the individual would be providing the information or they would allow the release of information, so HIPAA wouldn’t apply in general anyway.

The real question is whether or not this is considered legal per ADA guidelines, which are unfortunately not as black and white as people believe because it relates to “reasonable”ness. I don’t know how this would go.

Essentially I believe it would be found that if you want a business to make an accommodation for your disability it is reasonable for the business to require documentation that shows why you need the accommodation. For obvious things like wheelchair access this is not necessary because those accommodations are built in.

In general, people misunderstand what HIPAA actually is. If Disney requests information from your doctor the doctor cannot provide it without your consent. However, it doesn't preclude Disney from asking for information from you in order to see if you qualify for DAS. I'm sure Disney has a privacy policy in place that says they won't disclose the information, but, the information you provide to Disney (or their third party contractor) is not covered by HIPAA because they are not involved in your medical care or the billing and payment for the care.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

As a disabled person, I honestly don't trust the third party in question to keep my data safe, or that they'd would deny my longstanding accomodations before Disney could approve it (as Disney has for almost 20 years at this point). It's been a problem with Universal for some apparently. I can get the letters fine. Not an issue. But the possible change in standards may be!

I use DAS because of my multiple sclerosis and related issues…I’ve said before and I’ll reiterate it now, I don’t have anything to hide about my disease and I’d be THE FIRST person in line to get “registered” permanently as a DAS user…I own my own ECV, I’d love to present all my medical paperwork ONCE to get approved like I’ve done with my handicapped placard with the state MVS. I trust them a lot LESS than I would with Disney or a related third party. The ONLY people that should be upset are the ones milking the system.

 

[Angel Ariel]

Providing documentation isn't an issue for us in terms of ability - we certainly can do so. And. Her school paperwork mentions little about the issues that cause her to need DAS because school is a different environment. So that means doctor's note, which we did for Universal earlier this year. Thankfully we are privileged enough to have a health insurance that did not charge us for writing the letter. The same is not true for everyone - I just read on another board that someone had to pay $100 to get a note because that's the standard charge their provider has for writing letters. No one should have to pay fees Like that simply to get a note to go to Disney. Even with our free note, it took 4+ days of communication back and forth with her doctor, as listing a diagnosis for DD is pointless (less than 600 in the world have the diagnosis), so the doctor had to take time to understand what IBCCES needed to write in plain language without diagnosis what DD needed. It required screenshot sending back and forth and was honestly annoying just from a time perspective as we have so much else going on medically.

It was frustrating and a hassle for all of us. And yeah, it's annoying as hell that we had to jump through hoops at Universal (like we don't jump through enough on a day to day basis) just to go on vacation because there are ableist people who will cheat the system. (I have other words for them in my head that aren't appropriate for writing here).

Universal's system isn't foolproof. There are and will be cheaters under this system too if Disney adopts it.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

Oh. So then the person talking to us was fibbing.

Apparently they were…when we took my dad in 2013, before I needed DAS, we had a group of 9 and it was capped. The item that should also be capped is the amount of guests that can accompany the DAS holder on transportation. I think 4 should be the limit.
I’m more than willing to take the bus solo and wait for the family to catch up or vice versa…that’s always been the one aspect of the DAS that I always felt guilty about. There has been plenty of times when it’s been my wife and I or the family of 4 that we have waited to let the lines (especially at park close), to let some of the guests in like go before us.

 

[Angel Ariel]

As a disabled person, I honestly don't trust the third party in question to keep my data safe, or that they'd would deny my longstanding accomodations before Disney could approve it (as Disney has for almost 20 years at this point). It's been a problem with Universal for some apparently. I can get the letters fine. Not an issue. But the possible change in standards may be!

Exactly.

I also have issues with the makeup of those sitting on IBCCES. IBCCES started as an autism related site. Their board only has 2 MDs, one of which is a sleep neurologist. There's no transparency at all as to where this documentation goes, what are the qualifications of the people at IBCCES reviewing and deciding whether or not the paperwork submitted qualifies, etc.

My daughter's condition is one where I'm typically educating the doctor because there's so few cases. I have very little trust in a random org with such little medical basis being responsible with data protection.

 

[Angel Ariel]

I was surprised when I heard someone talking about using DAS and they were able to include all the members of their traveling party on it. 9 people total - immediately family of user, then aunts/uncles/cousins.
It does seem excessive that everyone in the party gets access and not just the guest who needs it and perhaps their immediate family. Although this person may have been explaining how it works to us incorrectly, was kind of just breezing through the story.

That's not typical. We've always been told it's capped at 6, unless your immediate family is larger than 6 (the same way they typically do military salute tickets). And if you read the disability boards on Disney sites, or FB, you see many, if not most, are denied more than 6 (even when they're immediate family at times).

 

[Angel Ariel]

It seems HIPAA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) would provide the necessary safeguards, but I’m not certain.

HIPAA doesn't apply (for ed to IBCCES) because the disabled person is choosing to share their medical information. IBCCES' privacy policy for ex makes no mention of HIPAA.

 

[networkpro]

So we oscillate between reasonable and extreme. IMHO, DAS should only extend from the holder to a single attendant/care assistant. That would limit the impact to a reasonable impact and accommodation. Relying on the individuals to determine what a reasonable accommodation for any condition has absolutely failed.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

IMHO, DAS should only extend from the holder to a single attendant/care assistant.

It’s reasonable that the family would want to experience attractions together.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It’s reasonable that the family would want to experience attractions together.

Agree…which means who has access to it should be tightly controlled

All access/disability rules are in place so the playing field is EQUAL. It doesn’t mean anyone with a doctor willing to give them a note should be allowed to skip the $35 line fees

…or Disney could stop messing around and equip their parks with enough where DAS isn’t a hot button issue/raging debate.

 

[DisneyCane]

Agree…which means who has access to it should be tightly controlled

All access/disability rules are in place so the playing field is EQUAL. It doesn’t mean anyone with a doctor willing to give them a note should be allowed to skip the $35 line fees

…or Disney could stop messing around and equip their parks with enough where DAS is a hot button issue/raging debate.

Why would they want to do something crazy like increase park capacity so they can handle the attendance without long waits for short, mediocre rides like SDMT?

 

[networkpro]

It’s reasonable that the family would want to experience attractions together.

But the ADA protection doesn't extend to families, so the legal mandate would be met without the could have, should have, would have interjection.

 

[CJR]

…or Disney could stop messing around and equip their parks with enough where DAS is a hot button issue/raging debate.

Digesting this, I do wish Disney would put a similar work effort, time, money, and energy into fixing the system that caused this issue.

There are definitely things that Disney can do to make people's in park experiences better, in addition to taking a look at DAS.

Especially on those rare days Genie+ sells out, which I've personally been fortunate to avoid, this is a problem of their own creation and they need to come up with a better solution than building a wall around Lightning Lane access.

 

[Brian]

But the ADA protection doesn't extend to families, so the legal mandate would be met without the could have, should have, would have interjection.

You're conflating ADA protection with courtesy. When an airline allows a person in a wheelchair to board the plane early, they don't tell their companion "you'll just have to wait here." They allow them onboard at the same time. This isn't because they are required to do so, but because it's the right thing to do.

The same courtesy, something which Disney is known for and prides itself on, can and should be extended to their travel party, and capping it at six total is reasonable, in my opinion.

 

[networkpro]

You're conflating ADA protection with courtesy. When an airline allows a person in a wheelchair to board the plane early, they don't tell their companion "you'll just have to wait here." They allow them onboard at the same time. This isn't because they are required to do so, but because it's the right thing to do.

The same courtesy, something which Disney is known for and prides itself on, can and should be extended to their travel party, and capping it at six total is reasonable, in my opinion.

No I am not. Read the the legal requirement for accommodation. No where does it extend beyond the individual receiving the accommodation.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

But the ADA protection doesn't extend to families, so the legal mandate would be met without the could have, should have, would have interjection.

Tell me you don’t have anyone disabled in your family without telling me….

 

[Brian]

No I am not. Read the the legal requirement for accommodation. No where does it extend beyond the individual receiving the accommodation.

We're in agreement on that front. There is no legal requirement that I know of to provide accommodations for the companion(s) of an individual with disabilities.

Disney, being known for going above and beyond to be courteous to their guests, does the right thing by extending the courtesy of accommodating the travel party of a guest with a disability, even if they don't have to under the ADA.

What good would DAS be to a guest with disabilities if they couldn't take their spouse or child(ren) with them? What about minors with intellectual disabilities who are often granted DAS? Just send them in on their own?

 

[Angel Ariel]

On that account, any third party who handles this is going to have to be a completely HIPAA compliant outfit, as anyone who has any medical data is. The same legally mandated safeguards like the insurance company, third-party medical billing, pharmacy, clinic, private practice, etc. has to have.

Like any system, nothing is infallible, but it's certainly a lot more safe and legally protected than the notes Disney keeps on your file.

I don't believe IBCCES has anything regarding being HIPAA compliant. As shared earlier - since it's the customer sharing their information, not the medical provider direct to IBCCES, HIPAA doesn't apply. So what reason is there to trust that info IBCCES receives is protected with the same safeguards as insurance/medical providers, etc?