Possible Changes coming to the Guest Assistance Cards (GAC)

[luv]

"I forgot my card at home."
"I lost my card between the airport and the hotel."
"It was in my wallet and I was mugged and it hasn't been replaced yet."

Now Disney is in a precarious place. If you do have a disability covered by the ADA and aren't accomodated, Disney has just violated the law.

This is why Disney's current system is lazy. It tries to be a one-size-fits-all accommodation to avoid liability. There is no thought process to it.

I'm not saying he policy exists now. I'm saying it needs to be made.

Now I'm really leaving. I don't want to be rude, but its just such a depressing subject.

 

[fosse76]

Remove the incentive, stop the abuse. This is one thing FP+ would be great for.

When I worked for Six Flags, they had a similar system as GAC. However, they restricted the number of times you could use it on any one attraction (I think it was once every two hours...the host would write the ride name and time on the pass). Disney should do something similar...but in reverse: GAC Guest goes to ride entrance and shows GAC. the wait time for the standby is 60 minutes. The CM scans the wristband/card and tells the guest that they can return in 60 minutes. However, the GAC cannot be used during that 60 minute on another attraction. It would be restricted to 4 people if there are 2 adults in the party and 6 people if only one adult in the party. Everyone else would be required to go through the queue.

In MY world, with the intrusiveness of the RFID bands, they actually wouldn't be allowed on ANY attractions during that time. But I'll be fair and allow it, since this is Disney and you don't want to punish legit users. It treats GAC more like a FP of sorts, but is at least more fair, and would reduce the amount of abusers. You won't ever eliminate abuse, but by creating those types of restrictions, those that abuse the system would find it less attractive.

 

[muteki]

There would still be people who couldn't go. Hard to pre-schedule a ride on Space Mountain when you don't know which of your various problems might become an issue on June 2nd, lol. Some people have good days and bad days...days when they feel 100% and days where they lie in bed, doped up and propped with pillows, trying to just lower the amount of pain. Can't know which of those extremes (or somewhere in between) June 2nd will be.

I don't really mean use FP+ in the "plan ahead" sense, but more as a tool to grant delayed access in the form of an on-the-spot FP that the CM at the gate could issue. The system could track usage and apply limits as necessary during that time frame while they would be waiting.

When I worked for Six Flags, they had a similar system as GAC. However, they restricted the number of times you could use it on any one attraction (I think it was once every two hours...the host would write the ride name and time on the pass). Disney should do something similar...but in reverse: GAC Guest goes to ride entrance and shows GAC. the wait time for the standby is 60 minutes. The CM scans the wristband/card and tells the guest that they can return in 60 minutes. However, the GAC cannot be used during that 60 minute on another attraction. It would be restricted to 4 people if there are 2 adults in the party and 6 people if only one adult in the party. Everyone else would be required to go through the queue.

Exactly.

 

[SoupBone]

Why can't the ADA partner with Disney and the AMA to develop guidelines that will help determine who becomes eligible for the GAC (rhetorical question)? Then the ADA lobbies for amended laws that allow for a registered nurse or higher (Nurse Practitioner, Physician's Assistant, Physician) to be able to review your doctor's excuse and grant the GAC. Aren't RN's and above located in the section that grants GACs? This would mean no embarrassment, no HIPAA violations, and people that truly need the GAC will be able to use it. Guests that do not use the GAC will then know that people truly needing it are being helped and everyone is happy.

Of course we all know the issues and why this could never happen, but solutions do exist. The problem is that no one is willing to give even a little so Disney continues to allow rampant abuse of the system, while people that truly need the GAC suffer. If several of the above organizations worked together toward a solution, it could be achieved. What happens if in the near future guests that normally would never consider getting a GAC go ahead and get one. Will Disney finally do something if you have triple the wait in the FP line as the standby? What is going to be the breaking point where actual change will occur? I really feel bad for the families that really need the GAC, but because of a bunch of dishonest idiots, are forced to wait much longer than they should to enjoy Disney.

 

[Violet]

So Flynn is absolutely correct that Disney is just being lazy with their policy. You can't stand more than ten minutes? "Here's a courtesy wheelchair you can use in our wheelchair-acccessible queue." Oh, you don't want to sit in a wheelchair? "Our only other type of accomodation is to allow you to sit on this bench for the same legth of time as our standby line, and then we'll board you." That is ALL the ADA would require Disney to do.

I wrote above about my panic disorder and how I can get panic disorders in crowded places...like queues at WDW. I never knew about the GAC before I read this thread, so I never even thought about how it could "help" me.

But I can tell you that an alternate entrance pass would help me at WDW, especially if it turned into a Fastpass at many attractions. Now if you offered me a bench for the same amount of time...eh, might help, might not. Depends where it was and how crowded that space was.

There are definitely calculations like this going on when people think about whether they want a GAC or not, even the people with legitimate reasons for wanting one.

 

[Violet]

Will Disney finally do something if you have triple the wait in the FP line as the standby?

I think the new FP system is going to be used to cut down on GACs when it is fully rolled out. Instead of "Here is your alternate-entrance GAC because you can't stand in line," the answer might be, "Ok, I understand you can't stand on line, here is my iPad, let me help you plan some rides out for the day, then you won't have to wait in line."

As someone who actually has a legitimate medical reason where a GAC could help (not that I have ever gotten one), I am SO looking forward to the new system. It's going to help me immensely to be able to reserve even a few attractions a day.

 

[flynnibus]

The individual states have the authority under the ADA to define service animal. There is one state, that I just read about, that is either trying to or already has allowed small horses to be used as service animals.


Under the ADA, businesses must allow service animals into their establishments. Legally, they can only ask if the animal is in fact a service animal AND what type of service the animal provides. They cannot demand proof that the animal is a service animal nor can they refuse admittance of the animal.

As it turns out.. the latest iteration of the revised requirements (2010) do infact include new definitions and controls for service animals (that I had not read myself before..).
http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

It's interesting they apply filters.. saying a service animal can only be a dog, or miniature horse.. but does not get into regulating them. The 'expansion' of what disabilities that are covered in the 2010 version is disturbing IMO..

It's an absolute myth that Disney or any business cannot require proof of a disability...or even disclosure of a disability. HIPPA addresses the disclosure of medical information by any thgird-party entity that has that information...it doesn't stop me from asking "what is wrong with you?" The ADA doesn't prohibit it either. If you get hired for a job, you must disclose your disability in order for them to accomodate you

It's not that black and white though - unfortunately the ADA is not 'uniform' in this sense in that it has extra options available to businesses in certain scenarios.. like employment, and all the wonky-ness around powered assist vehicles, etc. The issue that haunts companies is the risk of being called out as discriminating or filtering by their method of inquiry and response.

HIPPA is a red herring in these threads... HIPPA limits 3rd party disclosure and protection of the information collected... there is no conflict in having a patient disclose their own information to someone (as you said as well).

There is nothing in the ADA that prohibits businesses from doing the same with customers, since the same actions are involved

But while both are Title III of ADA - they are in fact their own sections with their own requirements. You can't treat employment and public accommodation interchangeably. I won't have time in the next week to elaborate on this with specific cites as I'm going to be away for the most part.

That is ALL the ADA would require Disney to do.

Agreed.

ADA is far too over reaching in the 2010 version and later iterations of the guidelines IMO. I think it sets the bar so low it makes everyone have to bow to the lamest whimper - and since the recourse for all enforcement or complaints is civil court... businesses are at a disadvantage in that there is no free defense against absurd claims. Businesses are conditioned to live in fear to avoid risk.

 

[moonwishes2013]

We (or rather, I) need the GAC. I honestly wish Disney were allowed to require a doctor's note. I feel so guilty every time I pull the thing out, I've gotten to a point where I'm skipping attractions.

We have been to Disney Twice, first time was a Make A Wish Trip for my DD & Yes, we had a GAC, but she was to little to ride the rides, so mostly we did the Meet & Greets. We took a second trip this year the celebrate her 5th birthday, & YES, we had a GAC again, her illness is a hidden illness, she tires easly, just by looking at her you would not know anything was wrong, she is stable right. We used our GAC & we did have to wait, we did not get right on all of the rides, but of course she did not ride alot of the popular rides. My husband was upset about all of the comments we overheard people making & the looks, I would not let them spoil my daughters fun, I told him to ignore them, that they did not KNOW OUR SITUATION, & IT WAS NONE OF THIER BUSINESS, we did bring a letter from her H&O doctor but of course they told us that they could not read it, I would not have a problem with Disney requiring a doctors note, I would prefer it, then maybe people would stop making assumptions when they see a GAC. Bless her little heart, she has asked to go back again & God Willing she can someday.

 

[misterID]

I think the new FP system is going to be used to cut down on GACs when it is fully rolled out. Instead of "Here is your alternate-entrance GAC because you can't stand in line," the answer might be, "Ok, I understand you can't stand on line, here is my iPad, let me help you plan some rides out for the day, then you won't have to wait in line."

As someone who actually has a legitimate medical reason where a GAC could help (not that I have ever gotten one), I am SO looking forward to the new system. It's going to help me immensely to be able to reserve even a few attractions a day.

Nice post(s).

My father is going to use one this October (Stage 4 Kidney failure, dialysis patient), but there are so few rides he's really interested in the card is perfect for him and us. Some rides in FL, the HM, Pirates, JC, that's about it in MK.

And captainkidd shouldn't feel bad at all.

 

[Violet]

Nice post(s).

My father is going to use one this October (Stage 4 Kidney failure, dialysis patient), but there are so few rides he's really interested in the card is perfect for him and us. Some rides in FL, the HM, Pirates, JC, that's about it in MK.

And captainkidd shouldn't feel bad at all.

October is such a wonderful time to go, I hope you and your dad and your family have a great trip.

 

[unkadug]

"I forgot my card at home."
"I lost my card between the airport and the hotel."
"It was in my wallet and I was mugged and it hasn't been replaced yet."

Now Disney is in a precarious place. If you do have a disability covered by the ADA and aren't accomodated, Disney has just violated the law.

This is why Disney's current system is lazy. It tries to be a one-size-fits-all accommodation to avoid liability. There is no thought process to it.

On the other hand a multimillion dollar corporation certainly doesn't want to put this liability on the shoulders of a minimum wage high school student.

I'm not being an apologist, I just see both sides of the coin.

 

[flynnibus]

On the other hand a multimillion dollar corporation certainly doesn't want to put this liability on the shoulders of a minimum wage high school student.

..which is why the solution can't be in the process of determining 'do you really have a disability??'

Any risk adverse organization, especially one like Disney that doesn't trust front line CMs to do anything not scripted to a T, will err to the side of caution here. I don't know how many different ways it needs to be said for the larger audience to understand... trying to filter who has a disability or not is a no-win situation.

The solution needs to be somewhere else.

 

[fosse76]

As it turns out.. the latest iteration of the revised requirements (2010) do infact include new definitions and controls for service animals (that I had not read myself before..).
http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

It's interesting they apply filters.. saying a service animal can only be a dog, or miniature horse.. but does not get into regulating them. The 'expansion' of what disabilities that are covered in the 2010 version is disturbing IMO..

Yes. However, individual states can expand the definition of a service animal. The Federal law is the minimum that is required. So a state could not exclude either a dog or a miniature horse (which, by the way, to me, is a bizarre choice for a service animal).

It's not that black and white though - unfortunately the ADA is not 'uniform' in this sense in that it has extra options available to businesses in certain scenarios.. like employment, and all the wonky-ness around powered assist vehicles, etc. The issue that haunts companies is the risk of being called out as discriminating or filtering by their method of inquiry and response.

Exactly.

HIPPA is a red herring in these threads... HIPPA limits 3rd party disclosure and protection of the information collected... there is no conflict in having a patient disclose their own information to someone (as you said as well).

I'm not sure how HIPPA was even first brought into this discussion. I think people think they are interconnected, when they really aren't.

But while both are Title III of ADA - they are in fact their own sections with their own requirements. You can't treat employment and public accommodation interchangeably. I won't have time in the next week to elaborate on this with specific cites as I'm going to be away for the most part.

Oh for sure. However, the ADA when first introduced didn't include many of the so-called disabilities that are currently protected. And to be fair, Congress didn't give any thought to the amusement park industry. Most of the public acomodations regulations revolve physical access to something...most notably wheelchair access. However, because the ADA doesn't specifically address what information or proof can be ascertained by a public accomodation regarding a request for accomodation, it doesn't necessarily create such a prohibition by a public accomodation. I would argue that since it allows for an employer to inquire as to the nature of the disability and for proof of such disability before making an accomodation, a business can likewise do the same (until amended or adjudicated in court).

ADA is far too over reaching in the 2010 version and later iterations of the guidelines IMO. I think it sets the bar so low it makes everyone have to bow to the lamest whimper - and since the recourse for all enforcement or complaints is civil court... businesses are at a disadvantage in that there is no free defense against absurd claims. Businesses are conditioned to live in fear to avoid risk.

The guidelines were revisited after a Supreme Court decision made it extremely difficult for individuals with disabilities to prove they had a disability. In a 1999 decision, the Court pretty much threw out every definition of disability other than as a condition which a person was "substantially limited in a major life activity." (If you had a prosthetic limb you weren't limited, if you took medication to control a psychosis you weren't limited, etc.). So if a person had a disability which was mitigated by a treatment then under the Court's decision, the disability did not fall under that definition.

The real problem with the law is the lack of any definition for "reasonable accomodation." To the disabled person with panic attacks, a "reasonable" accomodation might be immediate front-of-line access. To everyone standing in line, that is NOT reasonable. What might be reasonable is my suggestion of telling them to come back in an hour. So it now becomes a civil court matter. Of course, I don't know that panic attacks would be defined as a disability. The problem I have with the courts is that they tend to decide, in these types of matters, that whatever the disabled person believes is resonable is what is resaonable. Though they do seem better at deciding what is reasonable when it comes to employer accomodations.

I guess the point is, and you and I both agree, is that Disney's solution is too broad, and CAN be legally narrowed to limit access and abuse.

 

[fosse76]

On the other hand a multimillion dollar corporation certainly doesn't want to put this liability on the shoulders of a minimum wage high school student.

I'm not being an apologist, I just see both sides of the coin.

My point was that businesses can require all the documentation they want, but if a person is disables as defined by the ADA and Disney refuses an accomodation because they don't have the required proof, Disney then violated the ADA. It's a double-edged sword. If there is no proof of disability and the disability isn't observable, it can become a huge liability issue to rely on front line CMs. The problem is Disney's solution is to allow everythging under the sun.

 

[Goofyernmost]

My point was that businesses can require all the documentation they want, but if a person is disables as defined by the ADA and Disney refuses an accomodation because they don't have the required proof, Disney then violated the ADA. It's a double-edged sword. If there is no proof of disability and the disability isn't observable, it can become a huge liability issue to rely on front line CMs. The problem is Disney's solution is to allow everythging under the sun.

Based on what you just said...what choice do they have? None that I can see, so we might just as well find another topic to discuss because all we can do is about it and there are no alternatives.

I'm just throwing this out there, I don't think they should have done this but if they had never offered GAC cards to begin with there wouldn't be an abuse problem but it would be more difficult for people with disabilities to get the help they need. ADA doesn't require GAC cards. All it requires is reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities. As was stated earlier, they don't define disabilities, but they are black and white about enforcement. That leaves places like Disney or any other public facility in a precarious position of being damned if you do and damned if you don't. The thing is that the consequences of not providing are much higher then if they turn their heads the other way and don't attempt to control something that they cannot control.

As the abuse escalates, they start to affect, in serious ways, the experience of the very people it was designed to help by causing larger lines in front of them, serious judgmental evaluation by everyone that even suspects that someone is abusing the system and a general uncomfortable feeling to those that really need it. A good deed that people with no moral core will gladly take advantage of no matter whom it hurts.

 

[Violet]

The real problem with the law is the lack of any definition for "reasonable accomodation." To the disabled person with panic attacks, a "reasonable" accomodation might be immediate front-of-line access. To everyone standing in line, that is NOT reasonable. What might be reasonable is my suggestion of telling them to come back in an hour. So it now becomes a civil court matter. Of course, I don't know that panic attacks would be defined as a disability. The problem I have with the courts is that they tend to decide, in these types of matters, that whatever the disabled person believes is resonable is what is resaonable. Though they do seem better at deciding what is reasonable when it comes to employer accomodations.

I guess the point is, and you and I both agree, is that Disney's solution is too broad, and CAN be legally narrowed to limit access and abuse.

I haven't been following this ADA discussion that closely, but your post is interesting, especially as someone with panic disorder.

To me, it seems so obvious...if you truly have insurmountable difficulties with lines and crowded places, (and certainly people with panic disorder aren't alone here, I would put children with some sensory disorders in here as well,) why are you going to a place that by definition is full of lines and crowded places?

If every line and crowd is a trigger for a meltdown, I think you have to rethink why you are even there. Stamina issues seem different to me...you can alleviate those with the use of a wheelchair or ECV, but it still doesn't mean you can't wait. And again, if you do have stamina issues, I wonder if WDW is the right vacation as well...there are so many other beautiful, relaxing places to vacation that don't require miles and miles of hoofing it in the Florida sun and humidity.

Regardless, I do think there are reasonable accommodations for both issues though...Giving return times and/or separate WAITING rooms, along with more staffing at the attractions. But that would cost Disney money.

 

[Violet]

The thing is that the consequences of not providing are much higher then if they turn their heads the other way and don't attempt to control something that they cannot control.

As the abuse escalates, they start to affect, in serious ways, the experience of the very people it was designed to help by causing larger lines in front of them, serious judgmental evaluation by everyone that even suspects that someone is abusing the system and a general uncomfortable feeling to those that really need it. A good deed that people with no moral core will gladly take advantage of no matter whom it hurts.

They can still provide "reasonable accommodations" but it doesn't have to be a FOTL pass, which is what the GAC ends up being for many attractions (other options could be return times and waiting areas). All of that costs money though. Disney chooses to go this route because of cost IMO.

People will always take advantage of a loophole, human nature. It's up to Disney to solve this problem but it's going to cost them money. They sure don't leave a box outside the front gate saying, "Throw your admission price in here before you enter! Honor system everyone, be good!" Because that would be their money that would get stolen.

But maybe the new Fastpass/MyMagic system will be a part of this solution.

 

[unkadug]

I haven't been following this ADA discussion that closely, but your post is interesting, especially as someone with panic disorder.

To me, it seems so obvious...if you truly have insurmountable difficulties with lines and crowded places, (and certainly people with panic disorder aren't alone here, I would put children with some sensory disorders in here as well,) why are you going to a place that by definition is full of lines and crowded places?

If every line and crowd is a trigger for a meltdown, I think you have to rethink why you are even there. Stamina issues seem different to me...you can alleviate those with the use of a wheelchair or ECV, but it still doesn't mean you can't wait. And again, if you do have stamina issues, I wonder if WDW is the right vacation as well...there are so many other beautiful, relaxing places to vacation that don't require miles and miles of hoofing it in the Florida sun and humidity.

Regardless, I do think there are reasonable accommodations for both issues though...Giving return times and/or separate WAITING rooms, along with more staffing at the attractions. But that would cost Disney money.

I tend to agree...a WDW visit is not a god-given right and some people just should avoid places like that.

 

[bfox1183]

I think you have to rethink why you are even there.

While I do somewhat agree, I can come up with one big answer for this, and that is a little one that wants to see Disney. Most parents would give anything to see their kids happy, and I know of a few that have gone to lengths like this.

 

[Violet]

While I do somewhat agree, I can come up with one big answer for this, and that is a little one that wants to see Disney. Most parents would give anything to see their kids happy, and I know of a few that have gone to lengths like this.

That's true.