Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 11 - Making “Meaningful Access” Meaningful: Equitable Healthcare for Divisive Times

  • from Part IV - Equality, Expertise, and Access
  • Edited by I. Glenn Cohen, Harvard Law School, Massachusetts, Carmel Shachar, Harvard Law School, Massachusetts, Anita Silvers, San Francisco State University, Michael Ashley Stein, Harvard Law School, Massachusetts
  • Book:
    Disability, Health, Law, and Bioethics
    Published online:
    08 April 2020
    Print publication:
    23 April 2020, pp 147-158

  • Summary

    Meaningful access to social participation sets a standard for repairing harms imposed by disability discrimination. To be meaningful, access must secure more for people for whom opportunity has been arbitrarily proscribed than merely ushering them through a newly unbolted door only to confront further barriers impelled by bias. Meaningful access to a social process is diminished or denied when individuals, due to disability, are prevented from achieving the benefits that generally motivate individuals to participate in that process. Yet interpreting the meaningful access standard has proved elusive for courts. An influential early decision made the illusory affirmation that the door was open to people with disabilities receiving Medicaid because they had the same fourteen days of eligibility for hospital care as others, even though they disproportionately required longer hospital stays to achieve similar care goals.