New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024

[NotTheOne]

What’s wrong with medical professionals again?

Nothing as far as I'm concerned, I think it's a good idea to have them available when needed for a call.

 

[Splash4eva]

Until this latest iteration, Disney made no bones about the fact that they weren't asking for documentation or proof. No medical experience needed when you're setting that as the expectation. I don't love their use of "medical professionals" now any more than I do Universal's.

If you dont mind me asking and you can deny answering. Ive followed you and this chat since inception. Im just curious why are you so adamant against using any medical professionals/docs when it seems like altho you are very vague someone who has legit reasons for DAS?

 

[NotTheOne]

If you dont mind me asking and you can deny answering. Ive followed you and this chat since inception. Im just curious why are you so adamant against using any medical professionals/docs when it seems like altho you are very vague someone who has legit reasons for DAS?

Actually, the poster has been very clear that the DAS is for her daughter who has a very rare disability. I agree wholeheartedly with her not providing details, as not only is it a privacy issue for her child, but also giving out details that can be seen and used by scammers is not a good idea.

 

[Chi84]

Actually, the poster has been very clear that the DAS is for her daughter who has a very rare disability. I agree wholeheartedly with her not providing details, as not only is it a privacy issue for her child, but also giving out details that can be seen and used by scammers is not a good idea.

Also, the more particular the facts, the less helpful as to the general issue. What works best for one person may not be best for another. Disney has to accommodate individuals, but there’s a limit to how much tailoring they can do.

 

[networkpro]

What’s wrong with medical professionals again?

I think Mr Heppenheiner would be qualified to address that

 

[Angel Ariel]

If you dont mind me asking and you can deny answering. Ive followed you and this chat since inception. Im just curious why are you so adamant against using any medical professionals/docs when it seems like altho you are very vague someone who has legit reasons for DAS?

I'll do what's required. I did it for Universal this past year. I just don't think it's the panacea it's often purported to be. The entire IBCCES process felt like security theatre to me, and it took a week of back and forth with my daughter's pediatrician to make happen because she didn't know the system and needed screenshots sent so she understood. The email system we have for her ped only allows 3 attachments and 1000 characters. It's quite inefficient, but the only way I have to communicate other than bringing my daughter in. Since she has significant medical anxiety from all she's gone through, I don't bring her in if I can at all avoid it. The whole process felt like a waste of my time, and a waste of our pediatrician's time. The people who will cheat the system will just make it all up, meanwhile those who follow the rules have more added to already overflowing plates.

I spend much of my time advocating for children with disabilities and their families, on top of the significant amount of time I have to do that for my own child medically and educationally. I understand documentation is necessary in some cases, and may be necessary for Disney in the future, and as I said - will do what I need to do to get my daughter the supports she needs - but philosophically I don't agree with adding barriers for disabled people because nondisabled people cheat the system.

As for my vagueness of DD's disability. She has a rare disorder. Naming it does nothing to explain anything as no one will have heard of it, and is more identifying than I wish to be online given the very small number of people worldwide that have been diagnosed with it.

 

[Angel Ariel]

Actually, the poster has been very clear that the DAS is for her daughter who has a very rare disability. I agree wholeheartedly with her not providing details, as not only is it a privacy issue for her child, but also giving out details that can be seen and used by scammers is not a good idea.

Thank you

 

[NotTheOne]

I'll do what's required. I did it for Universal this past year. I just don't think it's the panacea it's often purported to be. The entire IBCCES process felt like security theatre to me, and it took a week of back and forth with my daughter's pediatrician to make happen because she didn't know the system and needed screenshots sent so she understood. The email system we have for her ped only allows 3 attachments and 1000 characters. It's quite inefficient, but the only way I have to communicate other than bringing my daughter in. Since she has significant medical anxiety from all she's gone through, I don't bring her in if I can at all avoid it. The whole process felt like a waste of my time, and a waste of our pediatrician's time. The people who will cheat the system will just make it all up, meanwhile those who follow the rules have more added to already overflowing plates.

I spend much of my time advocating for children with disabilities and their families, on top of the significant amount of time I have to do that for my own child medically and educationally. I understand documentation is necessary in some cases, and may be necessary for Disney in the future, and as I said - will do what I need to do to get my daughter the supports she needs - but philosophically I don't agree with adding barriers for disabled people because nondisabled people cheat the system.

As for my vagueness of DD's disability. She has a rare disorder. Naming it does nothing to explain anything as no one will have heard of it, and is more identifying than I wish to be online given the very small number of people worldwide that have been diagnosed with it.

Add to the theater aspect of IBCCES the fact that proving the disability exists does nothing to determine whether or not (or which) accommodations a guest needs.

 

[Chi84]

but philosophically I don't agree with adding barriers for disabled people because nondisabled people cheat the system.

No one agrees with it on a philosophical level, but it can be an issue if the cheating actually ends up making the system unworkable/unsustainable. I asked yesterday what the alternatives are for requiring proof under those circumstances, but did not get an answer.

 

[Angel Ariel]

No one agrees with it on a philosophical level, but it can be an issue if the cheating actually ends up making the system unworkable/unsustainable. I asked yesterday what the alternatives are for requiring proof under those circumstances, but did not get an answer.

It seems there are some that agree with it here at least. As I said, I understand why it is/may be necessary, and will jump through whatever hoops i need to - but I was asked why I disagree with it.

 

[NotTheOne]

No one agrees with it on a philosophical level, but it can be an issue if the cheating actually ends up making the system unworkable/unsustainable. I asked yesterday what the alternatives are for requiring proof under those circumstances, but did not get an answer.

I disagree that cheating was the biggest issue with DAS prior to the changes - I believe it was people who are genuinely disabled, but that don't really need DAS in order to access the parks. And documentation does nothing to alleviate that issue.

 

[Tigger&Pooh]

If you dont mind me asking and you can deny answering. Ive followed you and this chat since inception. Im just curious why are you so adamant against using any medical professionals/docs when it seems like altho you are very vague someone who has legit reasons for DAS?

I'm not the poster you quoted but I'll answer as well. My issue is with medical documentation going to a non-medical person. That's hard copy or electronic copy, something I no longer control what they do with the document or who sees the document or how/when/if the document is stored and/or destroyed. I do not believe the IBCCES personnel "reviewing" the documentation are medically trained in any regard; therefore I do not want to share such personal information with a lay person. They are simply rubber-stamping that a document was received.

I have no issue with "medical professionals" and Disney is upfront that they are using people with a medical background. Also, there is no diagnosis and no documentation involved. It's all verbal, other than whatever notes made on Disney's end (which presumably does NOT include a diagnosis even if shared).

 

[Chi84]

I disagree that cheating was the biggest issue with DAS prior to the changes - I believe it was people who are genuinely disabled, but that don't really need DAS in order to access the parks. And documentation does nothing to alleviate that issue.

You’re not disagreeing because I didn’t say cheating was the biggest issue. I’ve said from the very beginning of this thread that I believe it was overuse due to the recognition of more disabilities and an aging population.

I mentioned cheating in response to a poster who said the disabled should not have to face additional barriers because of non disabled people who cheat the system.

 

[Chi84]

I'm not the poster you quoted but I'll answer as well. My issue is with medical documentation going to a non-medical person. That's hard copy or electronic copy, something I no longer control what they do with the document or who sees the document or how/when/if the document is stored and/or destroyed. I do not believe the IBCCES personnel "reviewing" the documentation are medically trained in any regard; therefore I do not want to share such personal information with a lay person. They are simply rubber-stamping that a document was received.

I have no issue with "medical professionals" and Disney is upfront that they are using people with a medical background. Also, there is no diagnosis and no documentation involved. It's all verbal, other than whatever notes made on Disney's end (which presumably does NOT include a diagnosis even if shared).

I think the system Disney is using is the best they can under the circumstances.

 

[Splash4eva]

I'll do what's required. I did it for Universal this past year. I just don't think it's the panacea it's often purported to be. The entire IBCCES process felt like security theatre to me, and it took a week of back and forth with my daughter's pediatrician to make happen because she didn't know the system and needed screenshots sent so she understood. The email system we have for her ped only allows 3 attachments and 1000 characters. It's quite inefficient, but the only way I have to communicate other than bringing my daughter in. Since she has significant medical anxiety from all she's gone through, I don't bring her in if I can at all avoid it. The whole process felt like a waste of my time, and a waste of our pediatrician's time. The people who will cheat the system will just make it all up, meanwhile those who follow the rules have more added to already overflowing plates.

I spend much of my time advocating for children with disabilities and their families, on top of the significant amount of time I have to do that for my own child medically and educationally. I understand documentation is necessary in some cases, and may be necessary for Disney in the future, and as I said - will do what I need to do to get my daughter the supports she needs - but philosophically I don't agree with adding barriers for disabled people because nondisabled people cheat the system.

As for my vagueness of DD's disability. She has a rare disorder. Naming it does nothing to explain anything as no one will have heard of it, and is more identifying than I wish to be online given the very small number of people worldwide that have been diagnosed with it.

Thank you

 

[Splash4eva]

I'm not the poster you quoted but I'll answer as well. My issue is with medical documentation going to a non-medical person. That's hard copy or electronic copy, something I no longer control what they do with the document or who sees the document or how/when/if the document is stored and/or destroyed. I do not believe the IBCCES personnel "reviewing" the documentation are medically trained in any regard; therefore I do not want to share such personal information with a lay person. They are simply rubber-stamping that a document was received.

I have no issue with "medical professionals" and Disney is upfront that they are using people with a medical background. Also, there is no diagnosis and no documentation involved. It's all verbal, other than whatever notes made on Disney's end (which presumably does NOT include a diagnosis even if shared).

Im a DAS user as well. In the beginning we would always bring documentation etc originally not knowing it was not needed for GAC days and even in the DAS days. All im saying is agreed there will always be cheaters but yet another layer to make it difficult helps. As far as privacy goes & not saying you but so many people post and dont care on social media and will ALL thee security breaches hate to break the news to everyone. Your info is most likely already out there…

 

[Splash4eva]

Actually, the poster has been very clear that the DAS is for her daughter who has a very rare disability. I agree wholeheartedly with her not providing details, as not only is it a privacy issue for her child, but also giving out details that can be seen and used by scammers is not a good idea.

Yes im fully aware i have followed and interacte plenty

 

[jennab55]

I'll do what's required. I did it for Universal this past year. I just don't think it's the panacea it's often purported to be. The entire IBCCES process felt like security theatre to me, and it took a week of back and forth with my daughter's pediatrician to make happen because she didn't know the system and needed screenshots sent so she understood. The email system we have for her ped only allows 3 attachments and 1000 characters. It's quite inefficient, but the only way I have to communicate other than bringing my daughter in. Since she has significant medical anxiety from all she's gone through, I don't bring her in if I can at all avoid it. The whole process felt like a waste of my time, and a waste of our pediatrician's time. The people who will cheat the system will just make it all up, meanwhile those who follow the rules have more added to already overflowing plates.

Yes to all of this!!! It’s just such a hassle for both the parent or patient and the doctor. This is not a good use of either time. I COULD provide proof, but it’s a waste of time and for others it could be much more difficult or time consuming to get. What if someone wants to apply for DAS while in the park? Now what? They can’t because no way to get their dr to sign a form?

 

[jennab55]

I disagree that cheating was the biggest issue with DAS prior to the changes - I believe it was people who are genuinely disabled, but that don't really need DAS in order to access the parks. And documentation does nothing to alleviate that issue.

This is what I believe as well. Most of the people who had DAS have legit medical issues but fall into the “sometimes” category or could be met with other accommodations.

 

[Splash4eva]

Yes to all of this!!! It’s just such a hassle for both the parent or patient and the doctor. This is not a good use of either time. I COULD provide proof, but it’s a waste of time and for others it could be much more difficult or time consuming to get. What if someone wants to apply for DAS while in the park? Now what? They can’t because no way to get their dr to sign a form?

But this attitude is part of the problem and how its so easy to scam … people with legit disabilities should embrace this imo. We all go to Drs and obtaining a note verifying/validating ones condition should not be an issue