Bill Overview
Title: 21st Century Assistive Technology Act
Description: This bill reauthorizes through FY2027, modifies the funding allocations for, and makes administrative and other changes to programs that increase access to assistive technology devices and assistive technology services for individuals with disabilities. An assistive technology device includes any item, piece of equipment, or system that is used to maintain or improve the functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities (e.g., wheelchairs, hearing aids, or screen readers and computer software), and an assistive technology service is a service that directly assists an individual with a disability with selecting or using such devices, including by evaluating the individual's needs or expanding access to such devices and technology. Specific changes include expanding the scope of certain technical assistance to support grant recipients with data collection and increasing collaboration between agencies that are implementing certain assistive technology grants and state agencies that receive other sources of federal funding for this technology.
Sponsors: Rep. DeSaulnier, Mark [D-CA-11]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals with disabilities who use or require assistive technology devices or services
Estimated Size: 67000000
- The bill affects individuals with disabilities who rely on assistive technology to maintain or improve their functional capabilities.
- According to the World Health Organization, over 1 billion people, or about 15% of the global population, experience some form of disability.
- The demand for assistive technology is high given the diverse range of disabilities that require different kinds of devices and services.
- Advancements and changes in policies related to assistive technology can have a direct impact on the quality of life, independence, and participation in community life for people with disabilities on a global scale.
Reasoning
- The 21st Century Assistive Technology Act targets a diverse group within the U.S., estimated to include around 67 million adults who have some form of disability, impacting their need for assistive devices.
- Many individuals with disabilities require assistive technologies that vary in cost and function, ranging from simple aids to highly specialized equipment like powered wheelchairs or advanced hearing aids.
- Those benefiting significantly from this policy will typically see improvements in wellbeing, represented in higher Cantril wellbeing scores over time as they gain better access to these technologies.
- Considering the policy's budget constraints, not all individuals might experience noticeable changes immediately, leaving some groups with minimal or no changes depending on their specific needs and the current availability of required technology.
- Simulating a variety of perspectives can highlight the different levels of impact, from high to none, showcasing the policy's limitations and strengths within its fiscal confines.
Simulated Interviews
Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new policy could ease access to updated assistive tools which are often prohibitively expensive.
- Increased collaboration between agencies might reduce bureaucratic delays in receiving necessary technologies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Customer Service Representative (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to more affordable or upgraded hearing aids would significantly improve daily interactions.
- Greater data collection might lead to better-informed policies that meet real needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 3 |
Retired (Rural Iowa)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expanding access means the potential to replace her aging wheelchair with a more reliable model.
- The policy might streamline the acquisition process, cutting long wait times.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 1 |
Graphic Designer (New York City, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Easier access to technology grants could enhance productivity by providing better tools.
- There's often a gap between state and federal support; this might bridge it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Teacher (Detroit, MI)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the act would consider mild disabilities too, as oftentimes they are overshadowed.
- Collaboration with school districts might introduce better classroom technologies sooner.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
College Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Potentially more funding for academic tech support could make education more accessible.
- I worry smaller needs might not be prioritized in larger funding allocations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Freelancer (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might widen options for ergonomic supports which are often expensive.
- Effective outreach programs could ensure more are aware of what’s available.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Retired (Tucson, AZ)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's crucial that this policy ensures older adults aren't left behind in tech advances.
- Tech support is often lacking for seniors trying to adopt new assistive devices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 2 |
Office Manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to better adaptive tools would improve quality of life.
- I'm hopeful that increased funding can reduce out-of-pocket expenses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
High School Student (Orlando, FL)
Age: 18 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think more widespread availability of technology would aid in smoother school transitions.
- Clearer pathways for accessing these technologies are needed, especially in schools.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $255000000 (Low: $205000000, High: $305000000)
Year 3: $260000000 (Low: $210000000, High: $310000000)
Year 5: $270000000 (Low: $230000000, High: $320000000)
Year 10: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Key Considerations
- The scope of disability and need for assistive technology is broad, and advancements in technology are rapid.
- Effective implementation depends on federal-state collaboration, which requires coordination and strong administrative frameworks.
- Long-term benefits, both economic and social, hinge on successful integration and usage of assistive technologies.