The Accessibility Cost Debate: Why We’re Asking the Wrong Question

Whenever accessibility is brought up in conversation, there’s usually one question that comes up right away:

“Who’s responsible for the cost?”

It’s a valid question on the surface, but also the wrong one. Asking for it assumes that accessibility is some extra expense instead of a basic necessity. It misses the point that the actual cost of inaccessibility is already being paid—but not by the businesses or governments and not in ways they’re willing to acknowledge.

The truth is, disabled people are the ones paying the price.

They’re paying with higher unemployment rates, more out-of-pocket expenses for technology and services, and endless battles to get basic accommodations. Meanwhile, businesses and governments argue over budgets, and the actual cost continues to pile up on already-disadvantaged people.

So here’s a better question to ask:

• Why is inaccessibility still the default?
• Why is accessibility treated as an optional add-on instead of a basic requirement for everyone?
• Most importantly, how do we structure accessibility costs in a way that actually makes sense for everyone involved?

The Problem with "Reasonable Accommodation"

Right now, the law says that businesses need to provide “reasonable accommodations” unless they can prove that doing so would cause an “undue burden.”

Sounds fair, right? In theory, it’s a good idea. But here’s the catch: Who decides what’s reasonable?

• The employer.
• The business owner.
• A government agency or the courts, if the employee can afford to fight for it.

The problem is that “reasonable” is often defined by people who don’t have to deal with the barriers in the first place. The “undue burden” loophole gives companies an easy out if they think the cost is too high or the change is too disruptive.

This creates a reactive system where disabled people have to constantly ask for what they need—instead of creating a system where accessibility is just built in from the start.

A Better Way to Handle the Costs

Instead of making businesses bear the entire cost of accessibility (and leaving disabled people to fight for every accommodation), we need to split the responsibility in a way that makes sense:

1. Businesses should cover one-time accessibility costs—the infrastructure, tech, and design changes that make a space or product usable for everyone.
2. Governments should subsidize recurring service costs—things like interpreters, real-time captioning, or personal assistants who are specific to the needs of the individual employee or customer.

Why This Works:

? Businesses Would Be More Likely to Invest: One-time accessibility improvements—like building ramps, making websites screen-reader-friendly, or adding accessible restrooms—benefit everyone, not just one individual. These are predictable costs that businesses can plan for.

? It Removes Barriers to Hiring: If businesses aren’t worried about covering the recurring costs of accommodations, like interpreters, they’re more likely to hire disabled employees or serve disabled customers without hesitation.

? It Ensures Everyone Gets the Support They Need: By funding recurring services through government programs, we make sure that disabled people aren’t left behind because a business isn’t willing or able to pay for their accommodations.

How It Could Work

1. Businesses would be responsible for one-time costs, such as making their facilities accessible or designing products that work for everyone.
2. Governments would cover the cost of recurring services, such as paying for sign language interpreters, providing real-time captioning for meetings, or covering transportation for people with mobility needs.

This approach helps make accessibility sustainable for everyone. It ensures businesses don’t have to worry about high ongoing costs while giving disabled people the consistent support they need to participate fully in the workforce and society.

Accessibility Isn’t an Extra Cost—It’s an Investment

Every time a business says, “Accessibility is too expensive,” what they mean is:

? “We didn’t think it was necessary to budget for it.”

? “We don’t want to change how we’ve always done things.”

? “We don’t see disabled people as a big enough market to justify the cost.”

But here’s the reality:

? Accessible businesses attract more customers and employees—people with disabilities represent a massive untapped market.

? Accessible design leads to innovation—many tools and technologies we use today started as accessibility solutions.

? Making accessibility the baseline eliminates the need for costly retrofitting and minimizes the risk of legal battles.

The Bottom Line: Accessibility Needs to Be Built In, Not Added Later

Instead of constantly asking, “Who should pay?” we should ask, “Why isn’t accessibility already part of the plan?”

If businesses and governments treated accessibility like any other basic requirement—like electricity, water, or internet access—there wouldn’t be any debate over who’s responsible for the cost. It would just be built into the system from the start.

It’s time to stop treating accessibility as an optional cost and treat it like a necessary investment for everyone's benefit.

Thanks to Michael Swiatek for inspiring this article.