The Legal Framework for Language Access in Healthcare Settings: Title VI and Beyond

Over the past few decades, the number and diversity of limited English speakers in the USA has burgeoned. With this increased diversity has come increased pressure—including new legal requirements—on healthcare systems and clinicians to ensure equal treatment of limited English speakers. Healthcare providers are often unclear about their legal obligations to provide language services. In this article, we describe the federal mandates for language rights in health care, provide a broad overview of existing state laws and describe recent legal developments in addressing language barriers. We conclude with an analysis of key policy initiatives that would substantively improve health care for LEP patients

Access to hospital interpreter services for limited English proficient patients in New Jersey: A statewide evaluation

Context/Objectives. We surveyed New Jersey (NJ) hospitals to assess current language services and identify policy recommendations on meeting limited English proficiency (LEP) patients' needs. Methods. Survey with 37 questions regarding hospital/patient features, interpreter services, and resources/policies needed to provide quality interpreter services. Results. Sixty-seven hospitals responded (55% response rate). Most NJ hospitals have no interpreter services department, 80% provide no staff training on working with interpreters, 31% lack multilingual signs, and 19% offer no written translation services. Only 3% of hospitals have full-time interpreters, a ratio of 1 interpreter: 240,748 LEP NJ residents. Most hospitals stated third-party reimbursement for interpreters would be beneficial, by reducing costs, adding interpreters, meeting population growth, and improving communication. Conclusions. Most NJ hospitals have no full-time interpreters, interpreter services department, or staff training on working with interpreters, and deficiencies exist in hospital signage and translation services. Most NJ hospitals stated third-party reimbursement for interpreter services would be beneficial

Access to Hospital Interpreter Services for Limited English Proficient Patients in New Jersey: A Statewide Evaluation

CONTEXT/OBJECTIVES: We surveyed New Jersey (NJ) hospitals to assess current language services and identify policy recommendations on meeting limited English proficiency (LEP) patients\u27 needs. METHODS: Survey with 37 questions regarding hospital/patient features, interpreter services, and resources/policies needed to provide quality interpreter services. RESULTS: Sixty-seven hospitals responded (55% response rate). Most NJ hospitals have no interpreter services department, 80% provide no staff training on working with interpreters, 31% lack multilingual signs, and 19% offer no written translation services. Only 3% of hospitals have full-time interpreters, a ratio of 1 interpreter:240,748 LEP NJ residents. Most hospitals stated third-party reimbursement for interpreters would be beneficial, by reducing costs, adding interpreters, meeting population growth, and improving communication. CONCLUSIONS: Most NJ hospitals have no full-time interpreters, interpreter services department, or staff training on working with interpreters, and deficiencies exist in hospital signage and translation services. Most NJ hospitals stated third-party reimbursement for interpreter services would be beneficial