| “ | A
few months ago, a prospective patient called the office of Andrew
Brooks, a top-ranked orthopedic surgeon in Los Angeles. She was having
serious knee trouble, and she was also deaf. She wanted to know if her
deafness posed a problem for Brooks. He had his assistant relay a
message: no, of course not; he could easily discuss her situation using
knee models, anatomical charts and written notes.
The woman later called again to say she would rather have a
sign-language interpreter. Fine, Brooks said, and asked his assistant
to make the arrangements. As it turned out, an interpreter would cost
$120 an hour, with a two-hour minimum, and the expense wasn’t covered
by insurance. Brooks didn’t think it made sense for him to pay. That
would mean laying out $240 to conduct an exam for which the woman’s
insurance company would pay him $58 — a loss of more than $180 even
before accounting for taxes and overhead.
 
Signed
So
Brooks suggested to the patient that they make do without the
interpreter. That’s when she told him that the Americans With
Disabilities Act (A.D.A.) allowed a patient to choose the mode of
interpretation, at the physician’s expense. Brooks, flabbergasted,
researched the law and found that he was indeed obliged to do as the
patient asked — unless, that is, he wanted to invite a lawsuit that he
would probably lose. [continued]
| ” |
If you continue reading 'Freakonomics,' you'll find the answer to this
question: "How did the A.D.A. affect employment among the
disabled?" And how does all this tie in with the seven year
sabbatical? And what about "The Case of the Red-Cockaded
Woodpecker" You'll want to know, trust me. But, once you do,
you'll be like that guy who sees a new product and smacks himself in
the head, muttering, "Hey, I thought of that 20 years ago."
|
