Nat’l Orgs Respond to VRS Rates
1 06 2007All..
Six highly influental organizations got together and submitted a Reply Comments to the VRS Rates that the FCC released not too long time ago. These six organizations are: TDI, NAD, CCASDHH, HLAA, and ALDA (if you want to know who they are, click the link). 
Nat’l Orgs Responds to VRS Rates
Basically they are saying freeze the reimbursement rate of VRS until a better mousetrap of methodology of figuring out the cost can be made. Here are some of the reasons why:
- freeze the rates until all issues of figuring out fair reimbursement rates are made
- felt the current computing of reimbursement rates are flawed
- Interstate TRS Fund Council should assume more evaluation responsibility; i.e. be able to review proprietary data and cost breakdowns so they can appropriately advise Commission
- that reimbursement rates cover all reasonable costs including outreach/marketing of generic and brand names as well as R&D to enhance VRS
- at the same time, not to hand in a blank check to VRS providers
These are valid concerns.
Note of information. Only the NECA and the FCC know the actual cost breakdowns. The Interstate TRS Fund Council are not privileged to see such important cost breakdowns. Also, only the VRS providers provide the cost breakdown to the NECA/FCC.
All the hulaboo was from VRS providers complaining of the reimbursement rates being reduced so apparently these organizations VRS users listened to the VRS providers and wrote these comments. I wanted this point to be clear to the Alert Readers. It was not from the actual review of cost breakdowns that the organizations determined the methodology was flawed. It was from VRS Providers saying so.
That said, I do, however, agree VERY STRONGLY that the Interstate TRS Fund Council be given authority to review proprietary data. I’ve been member of this Council for many years and often wished for that. It would help the Council be in position to advise Commission more articulately.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
RT Admin.
The above is an excellent summary of the iii plus 13 page document for those who don’t want to wade through the lingo.
I’m going to be listing out the major losses suffered by the deaf communities due to interpreter shortages as result of this explosive VRS industry. These will be actual cases that went through our agency and our partner agencies throughout the US. I’m talking about major losses suffered like loss of employment, loss of freedom, loss of safety, loss of life, loss of independence, and loss of justice.
Richard
Hey Richard,
Authentic facts are good. I think everyone knows about these issues. I’ve often wondered who should receive these type of issues. The FCC or DOJ? The FCC is not responsible for “shortages” of terps – at least that is how I understood the relay regulations. DOJ deals with public access and employments, etc. So is DOJ the more appropriate fedral agency to complain to? Feel free, anyone, to correct me on this.
The problem with DOJ is they do not always respond to complaints formall filled. I filed one formal complaint with the DOJ regarding inaccessibility to streaming video clips.
Those of you who are not in VRS industry, but heavily involved in ADA; or those of you who are lawyers – do feel free to enlighten us as I’m not really sure myself. Is it one of the situation where it is “damned if do and damned if don’t” ;-]