Medical interpreter rule to get further study from AMA board

Doctors need translators to communicate with non-English-speaking patients but question who makes the best interpreters and who should pay for them.

By Tanya Albert, AMNews staff. July 9/16, 2001.

Chicago -- AMA trustees will use the coming months to take a closer look at a much-hated federal rule that requires physicians to pay for interpreters for patients who don't speak English.

Many physicians at the Association's Annual Meeting in June said they shouldn't be the ones getting stuck with the bills. But they were split on whether it would be best for someone else, such as the government, to pay for interpreter services or to just let patients bring their own interpreters to appointments.

After much debate, the House of Delegates voted to have trustees look at two resolutions that deal with medical interpreter services.

Trustees will explore shifting the interpreter responsibility from the physicians to the patient. They will also look at educating physicians about the ethical and legal implication of using informal interpreters, such as family members or bilingual staff, rather than trained interpreters.

"The basic issue is that this is an unfunded mandate," said Robert Hertzka, MD, a California delegate and anesthesiologist from Rancho Santa Fe.

In August 2000, the Clinton administration issued guidelines that more fully explain the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which guarantees that federal services can't be denied based on national origin or other factors. Courts have ruled that those factors include language.

While the Health and Human Services Dept. examines the guidelines and Congress considers a bill that would kill the policy, physicians who treat Medicaid and other patients in federally funded programs scramble to figure out how they can meet the requirements. [...]