private organizations, the NHRC believes that the government has failed to actively push clinics (the institutions that have the closest connection to the needs, rights, and interest of persons with disabilities seeking medical treatment) to fully comply with accessibility regulations. Although the MOHW set benchmarks for rewards in the Guidelines for the Administration and Issuance of Retention Funds Ensure Basic Level Western Medicine Quality Assurance to encourage clinics to build accessible medical environments, their effectiveness is limited. For example, as of June 1, 2021, only 30% of all clinics had accessible or patientfriendly medical environments. Additionally, the data were reported by the clinics themselves, making their accuracy and whether the clinics complied with accessible building design guidelines indeterminate. The government has long ignored the obstacles faced by persons with disabilities seeking medical treatment, and has not yet set concrete goals and schedules, resulting in persons with disabilities having to go to large hospitals (as opposed to having a choice between clinics and hospitals) if they wish to receive favorable medical treatment. The NHRC recommends that instead of passively waiting for basic clinics to submit an application for a reward, the government should categorize elementary clinics into different divisions according to the results of demand surveys and set specific goals accordingly. Today, among MOHW-affiliated hospitals, there remain four whose online registration systems do not have special options to assist persons with visual or hearing impairments. The MOHW’s response letter and explanations99 provided in discussions revealed that it has no intention or 99 objections made by groups such as medical associations and clinics’ associations. The department’s failure to send anyone to the meeting or to express its own opinions was equivalent to it forfeiting its right as a competent authority. Furthermore, an investigation of the objections made by the aforesaid groups showed that their objections contained many errors which the MOHW did not proactively communicate. ii. The MOHW and competent authorities of the relevant industries were unfamiliar with accessible environment regulations and failed to propose solutions to solve the problems raised by businesses. The former simply set aside the problems raised, thus setting back the scheduling for related units to review the incorporation of clinics into accessible environment regulations. In a response letter to the NHRC, the MOHW stated the following: The MOHW had already issued letters in October 2015 informing the indicated MOHW-affiliated hospitals to handle the aforementioned problems and, in a 2016 meeting, discussed and resolved to comply with relevant policies to build online registration systems for persons with disabilities and modify the template functions of the current official online registrations for persons with disabilities. Resolutions pertaining to the content of the special options were also made in the meeting that hospitals should purchase special options based on their needs. During discussion, the MOHW indicated the following reasons why special options for persons with visual or hearing impairments were not in place: (a) Local residents generally made reservations by phone. (b) Some of the MOHW-affiliated hospitals were small hospitals. (c) Some of the MOHW-affiliated hospitals assessed the need for such options 77