ADA Title II and MedEd Systems: What to Ask Your Vendors Now

June 15, 2026

Updated ADA Title II requirements took effect in April 2026, bringing new attention to how public institutions assess the accessibility of the digital systems their learners, faculty, and staff use daily.

For medical education programs, that conversation often starts with public-facing websites. It should not stop there.

Evaluations, procedure logs, clerkship documentation, assessment workflows, and other required academic processes are part of the learner and faculty experience. If those systems are difficult to navigate with a screen reader, cannot be completed using keyboard-only navigation, or include unclear form content, they create barriers in workflows central to medical education.

Programs that have not yet reviewed these systems have a clear reason to do so now.

Accessibility Readiness Extends Beyond the Website

Many institutions have already invested time reviewing their websites, admissions pages, and public digital properties. That work matters. In medical education, some of the most consequential digital interactions happen inside academic systems.

Learners use these platforms to complete evaluations, submit procedure logs, review schedules, and document clinical experiences. Faculty and program leaders use them to complete assessments, review learner progress, and support required program operations.

Accessibility readiness is therefore a shared concern across academic affairs, assessment and evaluation, clinical education, information technology, procurement, and accessibility teams.

A practical question for programs: have you reviewed the systems your learners and faculty rely on most, not just the websites the public can see?

Platform Accessibility and Form Accessibility Are Distinct

Platform accessibility and form accessibility are related but not the same.

A platform may support accessible rendering, including screen reader compatibility, keyboard navigation, and properly structured system-generated fields. The content inside that platform can still create accessibility issues depending on how forms, instructions, labels, and other materials are written or configured.

Accessibility issues can be introduced when forms include:

• Instructions that rely on color alone to communicate meaning
• Images without descriptive text alternatives
• Labels that are vague when read in isolation
• Directions that depend on visual layout, such as “click the button on the right”
• Long blocks of unstructured instructional text

Accessibility depends on both the technology and the content built within it.

That distinction matters for vendor conversations. Institutions should be able to ask not only whether a platform aligns with WCAG 2.1 Level AA expectations, but also how the vendor supports accessible content creation inside the platform.

Questions Worth Asking Your Current Vendor

As programs review their MedEd systems, these questions can help clarify where things stand:

• Does your platform have a current VPAT or Accessibility Conformance Report?
• Does that documentation cover learner- and faculty-facing workflows?
• Are evaluations, procedure logs, and required academic forms included in the scope?
• How does the platform support screen reader use and keyboard-only navigation?
• What guidance is available for accessibility issues that may be introduced through school-authored form content?
• Has the vendor provided clear readiness guidance related to ADA Title II and WCAG 2.1 Level AA expectations?

These questions are about creating clarity. For leaders responsible for medical education operations, assessment, clinical education, accessibility, procurement, or academic technology, clear answers identify where systems are ready, where internal review is still needed, and where additional vendor support may be appropriate.

How One45 Approaches This

Accessibility readiness has been an active area of focus for One45 at Acuity Insights.

Learner- and faculty-facing workflows in One45 have been built with WCAG 2.1 Level AA considerations in mind, including screen reader compatibility and keyboard navigation. VPAT documentation is available, and Acuity can speak with institutions about what is covered.

Accessible platform infrastructure is only part of the picture. Schools also need practical guidance for the content they create and maintain inside their systems, including evaluation forms, procedure logs, question labels, instructions, and images.

To support that, we developed a practical guide for One45 Super Admins on building accessible forms and logs. It covers common content issues and provides plain-language guidance for making updates where needed.

Read the One45 accessible forms guide.

A Practical Next Step

The April 2026 deadline has passed, but many programs are still working through what accessibility readiness means across their full MedEd technology environment.

A useful starting point is to identify the systems that support required learner and faculty workflows, then review vendor documentation, internal form content, and available support resources.

For programs using One45, Acuity Insights can clarify our approach, share available documentation, and support conversations about accessible form-building practices.

If your team is reviewing MedEd systems and wants to understand where One45 fits, we’d be glad to talk.