In Most Languages, ACA Does Not Translate

Opinion: When it comes to signing up for health care for 25 million Americans whose native language is not English, the application “tool” in 24 languages is falling short.

Kathy Ko Chin, CEO and president of the Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum, is a graduate of the Harvard School of Public Health and Stanford University. 
National Journal
Kathy Ko Chin
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Kathy Ko Chin
March 14, 2014, 1:05 a.m.

Health re­form is sup­posed to bridge the gap between the haves and have-nots when it comes to in­sur­ance, but lan­guage bar­ri­ers are stand­ing in the way.

This is the situ­ation many of the more than 25 mil­lion Amer­ic­ans who have dif­fi­culty com­mu­nic­at­ing in Eng­lish face as they struggle to nav­ig­ate the Af­ford­able Care Act. For these Amer­ic­ans — known as “lim­ited-Eng­lish pro­fi­cient” — the health in­sur­ance mar­ket­place is just an­oth­er closed door.

Des­pite the fact that 79 per­cent of this pop­u­la­tion speaks Span­ish, Chinese, Vi­et­namese, Korean or Ta­ga­log, fed­er­al edu­ca­tion ef­forts about the health law have largely been in Eng­lish. Even with the Span­ish lan­guage site Cuid­adoDe­Sa­ — four out of five of the most com­monly spoken lan­guages are out.

The dearth of re­sources is so large that non­profit co­ali­tions headed up by na­tion­al, state, and loc­al part­ners are re­ly­ing on private found­a­tion dol­lars to reach Asi­an, Pa­cific Is­lander, and oth­er minor­ity in-lan­guage speak­ers. Where one would ex­pect fed­er­al re­sources to be do­ing the job, these or­gan­iz­a­tions are de­vel­op­ing edu­ca­tion­al bro­chures and host­ing com­munity town halls to get out the mes­sage about en­roll­ment.

Even when well-in­ten­tioned fed­er­al ef­forts have tar­geted non-Eng­lish speak­ers, the res­ults have been dis­ap­point­ing, ran­ging from prob­lem­at­ic to wholly in­ac­cur­ate.

Trans­la­tion re­quires more than just word-for-word sub­sti­tu­tion. In or­der to be ac­cur­ate and use­ful, trans­lat­ors must take in­to ac­count the lit­er­al con­tent along with cul­tur­al and phon­et­ic nu­ances. Yet, some of the ma­ter­i­als on Health­ fall woe­fully short of this stand­ard.

Take for ex­ample, trans­la­tions of ba­sic Mar­ket­place doc­u­ments.

The Ta­ga­log ver­sion of The Value of Health In­sur­ance, simply swapped the word “de­duct­ible” with “bawas gas­tos.” The prob­lem is the lat­ter means a “re­duc­tion in cost” or “less ex­pens­ive” — far from the real mean­ing of the term de­duct­ible, which is the amount you pay rather than less spent.

Apart from trans­la­tion is­sues, non-Eng­lish speak­ers face an ap­plic­a­tion that simply does not meet their needs. For these groups, the dif­fer­ence between what is sup­posed to be and what really is have be­come glar­ingly ap­par­ent.

Health care nav­ig­at­ors and com­munity mem­bers are spend­ing hours walk­ing people through the pro­cess. The new ap­plic­a­tion — con­fus­ing enough in its own right — can be in­sur­mount­able for people with lan­guage bar­ri­ers. Even though there is an ap­plic­a­tion “tool” in 24 lan­guages, non-Eng­lish speak­ers can only ap­ply in per­son or through the fed­er­al call cen­ter.

Since there are no trans­lated ma­ter­i­als in Lao, one Illinois or­gan­iz­a­tion has had to rely on bi­lin­gual coun­selors as a work-around. But with no stand­ard gloss­ary of terms avail­able, coun­selors have struggled to ac­cur­ately con­vey com­plic­ated in­sur­ance lan­guage in Lao.

At the same time, while vis­it­ors to Health­ are told that help is avail­able via tele­phone in 150 lan­guages, hold times can dis­cour­age even the most de­term­ined caller. Callers are sup­posed to be con­nec­ted with an in­ter­pret­er, who, along with a trained op­er­at­or, can an­swer their ques­tions about eli­gib­il­ity and en­roll­ment. The real­ity, however, can be quite dif­fer­ent.

Des­pite con­sid­er­able im­prove­ments since the Oct. 1 launch, wait times for lan­guages oth­er than Span­ish are still un­ac­cept­ably long. One caller need­ing help in Bos­ni­an had to wait 30 minutes for an in­ter­pret­er — a far cry from HHS’ goal of a 60-second con­nec­tion. An­oth­er caller was told, in­cor­rectly, that help was only avail­able in Eng­lish and Span­ish. While an­ec­dot­al, these ex­per­i­ences are con­cern­ing since there is no way to know how many people hang up and stop try­ing.

Mean­ing­ful ac­cess to fed­er­al pro­grams is a right and one which fed­er­al of­fi­cials and health ad­voc­ates have worked tire­lessly for years to make a real­ity. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Ex­ec­ut­ive Or­der 13166, and the land­mark Su­preme Court case Lau v. Nich­ols clearly es­tab­lish that fed­er­ally fun­ded pro­grams and activ­it­ies can­not dis­crim­in­ate on the basis of lan­guage.

The ACA — his­tor­ic and as­pir­a­tion­al as it may be — is fall­ing short of this right.

Bet­ter ac­count­ab­il­ity, tar­geted ac­tion, and fund­ing are needed. Fed­er­al of­fi­cials have the ob­lig­a­tion to en­sure that trans­lated doc­u­ments are ac­cur­ate and ac­cess­ible. Out­reach cam­paigns must in­clude lan­guages oth­er than Eng­lish and Span­ish. And, the com­mon ap­plic­a­tion should be avail­able for con­sumers to com­plete in 15 of the most com­monly spoken lan­guages.

The chal­lenges and frus­tra­tions of lim­ited-Eng­lish-speak­ing Amer­ic­ans provide an im­petus to do bet­ter come the second open en­roll­ment and bey­ond. After all, mak­ing sure that all eli­gible Amer­ic­ans know their cov­er­age op­tions and are able to en­roll is the law.



The Next Amer­ica wel­comes op-ed pieces that ex­plore the polit­ic­al, eco­nom­ic and so­cial im­pacts of the pro­found ra­cial and cul­tur­al changes fa­cing our na­tion, par­tic­u­larly rel­ev­ant to edu­ca­tion, eco­nomy, the work­force and health. Email us. Please fol­low us on Twit­ter and Face­book.

What We're Following See More »
Chaffetz Also Caves, Says He’ll Vote Trump
1 hours ago
DNC Sues RNC Over Trump’s Rigged Vote Comments
1 hours ago

The Democratic National Committee sued the Republican National Committee in U.S. District Court in New Jersey for aiding GOP nominee Donald Trump as he argues that the presidential election is "rigged." The DNC claims "that Trump's argument is designed to suppress the vote in minority communities."

Clinton Foundation Staffers Steered Biz to Bill
9 hours ago

"Two chief fundraisers for the Clinton Foundation pressed corporate donors to steer business opportunities to former President Bill Clinton as well, according to a hacked memo published Wednesday by WikiLeaks. The November 2011 memo from Douglas Band, at the time a top aide to Mr. Clinton, outlines extensive fundraising efforts that Mr. Band and a partner deployed on behalf of the Clinton Foundation and how that work sometimes translated into large speaking fees and other paid work for Mr. Clinton."

House Investigators Already Sharpening Their Spears for Clinton
19 hours ago

House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz plans to spend "years, come January, probing the record of a President Hillary Clinton." Chaffetz told the Washington Post: “It’s a target-rich environment. Even before we get to Day One, we’ve got two years’ worth of material already lined up. She has four years of history at the State Department, and it ain’t good.”

Clinton Super PAC Enters the House Fray
23 hours ago

Priorities USA, the super PAC aligned with the Clinton campaign, which has already gotten involved in two Senate races, is now expanding into House races. The group released a 30 second spot which serves to hit Donald Trump and Iowa Rep. Rod Blum, who is in a tough race to win re-election in Iowa's first congressional district. The super PAC's expansion into House and Senate races shows a high level of confidence in Clinton's standing against Trump.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.