Scholarships / Funding

Excuse #2: Parents Or Private Health Insurance Should Pay For The Device

Response: The "Free" in FAPE is extremely significant with regard to children with disabilities who may require assistive technology. As stated in the IDEA and regulations, all aspects of the special education and related services provided to a child must be "at no cost to the parents." This term is interpreted broadly.

The "at no cost" rule prohibits school districts from refusing to include equipment, services or programs on the IEP based on its expense. And, once stated on the IEP, the school district must provide the equipment, services, and program needed to provide a FAPE.

The only time "cost" can be taken into consideration is where two alternatives exist that would each enable the child to receive an "appropriate" education. In that circumstance, the district may choose the less expensive option.

If school districts must provide a FAPE in a cost-blind manner, immediate attention will be directed to opportunities for cost-shifting to other sources. Among the most obvious sources are the parents' themselves, and private health insurance policies.

1. Schools Cannot Require Parents To Pay For Programs, Services Or Equipment Listed On A Child's IEP
   

   School districts cannot evade the "at no cost to parents" rule by telling parents they must pay for the needed equipment, services, or programs themselves.
   

   Schools cannot state that, because a computer can and will be used at times when school is not in session (such as before and after the school day, on weekends and holidays) the school is therefore not obligated to provide it. This "excuse" makes no real sense: everything children are taught and learn in school is intended to be used and further refined beyond the school setting. That is the whole purpose of school: preparation for life.
   

   When viewed in terms of the goals of education as a whole, the 'out of school' benefit excuse ceases to make any sense. It could just as easily be applied to justify not providing mathematics or science instruction. Obviously this is not a valid criterion to determine the school's duty to provide services.
   

   Schools also cannot refuse to provide a needed computer by claiming that the child can bring the device from home. This "excuse" also cannot pass a common sense test: children are not asked whether they have copies of reading materials at home, and if so, books are not provided at school. Children are not asked whether they have basketballs or footballs at home, and if so, gym equipment is not provided. Children are not asked whether they have bicycles, or whether their parents have cars, and if so, transportation is not provided.
   

   Why then should it matter whether a child has a an assistive device at home? In fact, it does not. While there is no barrier to a child bringing assistive technology from home to school, schools have no authority to mandate it.
   

   Finally, schools cannot claim that a particular service identified as an IDEA "related service" is needed, but for "medical" as opposed to "educational," reasons. Congress identified a wide range of "health" services as educationally "related;" school districts are not free to ignore or evade that designation.
   

   Once a service is identified as being "needed" for the child to benefit from his/her special education program, then the service must be provided by the schools. By recognizing the connection between the service and the child's special education, the educational/medical distinction ceases to have any significance. The only alternative is for the school to argue that the service is not needed at all.
   

2. Schools Cannot Require Parents' Health Insurance To Pay For A Child's FAPE
   

   Since 1980, the U.S. Department of Education has stated that school districts are absolutely forbidden from requiring the parents of a child with disabilities to use private insurance proceeds to pay for required services where the parents would incur a financial loss. In addition, even if it could be established that no such loss would occur, coercion still is forbidden: the use of insurance proceeds must be voluntary.
   

   The U.S. Department of Education reported on research findings that 73 % of all health insurance policies had lifetime dollar caps; 71 % had annual or lifetime limits on coverage for specific services; that claims use affected future insurability; and that claims use raised future insurance costs. On the basis of this research, OCR restated the validity the 1980 interpretation.
   

   The possibility that a "cost" will be associated with use of an insurance policy can be both explicit, and implicit. For example, a policy may cover durable medical equipment, as well as other services that may be IDEA related services. However, the policy also may include caps on coverage, deductibles, co-payment responsibilities, or other express or subtle limitations that would constitute a "cost" or "financial loss" if the policy is used for services in school.
   

   Care must be taken to ensure that a policy does not have such a limitation before a parent considers using his or her insurance to pay for a computer that would otherwise be the responsibility of a local school district.
   

   This provision does not preclude school districts from asking parents whether they have any insurance coverage, but school districts have no authority to require parents to disclose those policies, or to permit school authorities to review them.

The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the position or the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and no official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of the opinions expressed herein should be inferred.