Interpreters voice opposition to proposed fee schedule
Many Interpreting organizations and other industry professionals voiced their opposition to the the proposed fee schedule.
Slator: Language Industry Intelligence
California Interpreters Push Back on Proposed New Fee Structure
Is USD 448 enough compensation for a full day’s work for a certified interpreter servicing a hearing and deposition in California? What about USD 225 for half a day’s work?
The California Division of Workers Compensation (DWC) wants to know so it is seeking public comment on the proposed interpreter fee schedule regulations it posted to its online forum on April 2, 2018. The chief objective of the proposal is to create a uniform fee structure, which it said is based on the federal court system.
Interpreters’ compensation has become a thorny issue in California ever since amendments have been introduced in the Labor Code and other state laws over the past three years to curb the incidence of medical fraud.
In May 2017, a group of interpreters even took the DWC to court over the new system of compensation for interpreters. In June, the same group led the fight against allowing “provisionally certified” interpreters to work if certified legal and medical interpreters are not available, which the group claimed has led to the undercutting of fees.
The new regulations submitted for public comment appear to correct this loophole since the proposed professional fee for “certified” and “provisionally certified” were markedly different. The DWC said in its announcement that the higher rates proposed for “certified” interpreters are meant to encourage the use of certified interpreters.
‘Certified’ Vs ‘Provisionally Certified’
Under the proposed fee structure, an interpreter who renders a service in hearings and depositions would be paid USD 225 for a half day’s work and USD 448 for a full day’s work. However, a provisionally certified interpreter would only get half of the amount at USD 121 for a half day’s work and USD 234 for a full day’s work.
Meanwhile, there are specific rates for interpretation at a medical treatment appointment or a medical-legal evaluation, which is priced at USD 86.50 per hour for a certified interpreter, while provisionally certified interpreters would only get USD 57.75 per hour.
The DWC said that the organizations approved to certify interpreters remain unchanged from the current regulations. A certified interpreter for hearings and depositions is defined as an individual listed on the State Personnel Board website or listed as a certified interpreter on California Courts website.
Meanwhile, a certified interpreter for medical treatment appointments and medical-legal evaluation must be listed in the above government websites and hold a valid Certification Commission for Healthcare Interpreters (CCHI) certification or a valid and current National Board of Certification for Medical Interpreters (National Board) certification if they are working in certain specified languages.
The regulation is also introducing a streamlined process for claiming payments, which includes detailed invoice information and billing codes. It also requires full documentation on the process of selection and arrangement of interpreters, especially if “alternative” interpreters were selected in the absence of a certified interpreter.
We are in receipt of the proposed interpreter fee schedule from the California Division of Workers’ Compensation which was released for public comment on April 4. On behalf of the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators (NAJIT), which I serve as Chair of the Board of Directors, I am pleased to submit these comments.
As a national association, we are concerned whenever we see proposals with the potential to lower the quality of services provided by language professionals. Of course, our focus is on the populations that rely on quality language services for equitable access to the justice and healthcare systems. We have a number of concerns about the proposal which mirror those of the California Workers’ Compensation Interpreters Association (CWCIA). We are in full support of their recommendations for changes and urge you to consider all of them carefully.
We are particularly concerned that state and federal certification processes that assure that language professionals meet high standards for services to the public be supported and strengthened. California has an excellent certification process in place, but the proposal would undermine it in important ways.
There are two specific recommendations we would like to emphasize:
- §9934. Requirements to Perform Interpreter Services at Medical Treatment Appointments and Medical-Legal Evaluations: (c) The medical provider shall determine if a proposed provisionally certified interpreter has sufficient skill to be provisionally certified to interpret in the required language. Even a cursory examination of this proposal shows how it undermines the principle of quality assurance through certification. The point of quality assurance is that clients (in this case medical providers) cannot, for a range of reasons, determine the level of skills held by language service providers. This is the very reason certification was created.
- §9931 Selection and Arrangement for Presence of Interpreter. The proposals in this section are problematic because they would make it far too easy for both clients and language service providers to bypass the quality assurance process. In a nutshell, provisional certification should be reserved only for those cases where certified interpreters are not available or there is no avenue for certification. The proposed rules would make it possible to use non-certified interpreters only when it is inconvenient to use a certified one, and that is too low a standard. It is very important to note that one of our concerns is that this proposal would incentivize interpreters to not seek certification. Given the financial incentive to use non-certified interpreters, we are concerned that more assignments would go to interpreters who do not make the considerable effort required to gain certification.
I do not wish my focus on these provisions related to quality assurance to detract from the concerns expressed by CWCIA regarding working conditions and fair compensation for interpreters. We are fully supportive of their position on these issues.
Thank you very much for allowing us the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Please let us know if there is any way we can be of help during the next stages of the review process.
Intersect Cross-Culturual Communications
Out of California comes bad news—a new fee structure for interpreters in workers’ compensation.
It’s not too late to make a difference. Send your comments today. The deadline is Friday, April 13, 5:00 p.m. PDT (8:00 EDT).
Do you want healthcare providers and hearing officers to decide who is qualified to interpret?
Do you think provisional (not-yet-certified) interpreters should get paid less than half what certified interpreters get? (Most languages have no certification. Many U.S. providers prefer less expensive interpreters to qualified ones.)
Do you think interpreters should be paid a one-hour minimum instead of a two-hour minimum?
If not (and there are many more concerns—take a look) then make your voice heard. Speak for the profession, even briefly. Take ten minutes today and comment!
CSIMS California Society of Industrial Medicine
CAAA California Applicant Attorney's Association
Jason Marcus, Esq., President, California Applicants’ Attorneys Association
The California Applicants’ Attorneys Association(“CAAA”) offers the following comments regarding the draft regulations for the Interpreter Fee Schedule which are currently posted on the DWC Forum.
§9930. Definitions.
Clarification is needed on “daytime” and “evening” hours in subdivision (f). We recommend the following revisions.
(f) “Half-day" means:
(1) When appearing during normal business hours, 8 am to 5 pm, at any hearing of the appeals board or an daytime arbitration, for all or any part of either a morning or afternoon session; or
(2) When appearing at a deposition, all or any part of 3.5 hours; or
(3) When appearing at an evening arbitration after 5 pm, all or any part of 3 hours.
§9931 Selection and Arrangement for Presence of Interpreter.
Proposed regulation §9931 (a) allows for the use of non-certified individuals to provide interpreting services. Non-certified individuals are not required to have training in interpreter ethical requirements or standards of practice, or education in either medical or legal terminology. Demanding that all interpreters be certified (in the 16 languages that are presently certified) is our only assurance that our client’s rights will be protected.
In subdivision (c) (1) the party producing the witness for the deposition should be responsible for providing the interpreter at a deposition consistent with Labor Code section 5811 (b) and 8 CCR section 10564.
The selection of the interpreter for an injured worker’s deposition is a very important issue. The interpreter sits in with the attorney and the injured worker during a privileged conversation preparing for the deposition. Allowing the noticing party/insurance company to pick an interpreting agency that it has exclusive contracts with undermines confidence in the process and gives at least the appearance of impropriety. The interpreter should be selected by the injured worker’s attorney at a deposition as the party producing the witness consistent with Labor Code section 5811(b).
Further, we recommend that subdivision (c) (2) be revised to delete “prior to signing” and add “for purposes of correction” to more accurately reflect the practice of deponents reviewing their deposition transcripts after a deposition.
We also recommend that “immediately” be deleted from (c) (2) as in some circumstances preparation for the deposition may need to take place the day before to accommodate an injured worker’s schedule.
Our recommended revisions are below.
(c) Depositions.
(1) The party noticing producing the witness for the deposition shall select and arrange for the presence of an interpreter.
(2) This subdivision shall include the preparation of the deponent immediately prior to the deposition, the reading of a deposition transcript to the deponent for purposes of correction prior to signing, and the reading of prior volumes of a deposition transcript in preparation for continuation of a deposition.
While we oppose the level of control by the employer set forth in §9931, we believe at the very least an injured worker should retain control of the selection of an interpreter at a deposition, including preparation time with their attorney.
Additionally, in subdivision (e) (3) and (4) when an injured worker must select an interpreter for a medical appointment from the MPN all interpreters should be individually listed by name in the MPN Provider list, and not just by the name of the company or service provider. For an injured worker who has multiple medical appointments they may want the same interpreter to accompany them to all appointments, and the individual listing by name will allow for this. Further, this will allow the injured worker to be able to check if the MPN interpreter selected is certified.
Finally, nowhere in the proposed language in §9931 is there any assurance that all communications between the applicant and his or her attorney remain strictly confidential, despite the involvement of an interpreter.
The regulations should explicitly state that the interpreter is required to protect the sanctity of the privilege by refusing to disclose, either directly or indirectly, any communications between the applicant’s attorney and the applicant, and shall not express any opinions, or impressions, that derive from those communications. These standards should be observed regardless of which party is responsible for selecting the interpreter.
