As the mother of a child with autism, House Bill 187 and Senate Bill 74 excite me. They will require insurers to cover evidence-based autism spectrum disorder (ASD) therapies like applied behavior analysis. Currently, insurers deny payment of this and other therapeutic treatments for ASD.
Rep. Pete Petersen and Sen. Johnny Ellis sponsor these important bills. Chairman of the House Health and Social Services Committee Wes Keller has been stalling HB 187. Alaskans cannot afford this delay.
Treating ASD costs families upwards of $50,000 annually. Taxpayers also pay for ASD through special education, social community support services, and Medicaid. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate the prevalence of ASD at 1 in 110 children.
Research has shown that 40-45 percent of children who receive intensive early behavioral intervention achieved near normal or normal functioning. That amounts to a cost benefit savings of $1,686,061 to $2,816,535 per child over a lifetime.
Twenty-nine states have already enacted autism insurance reform laws; 13 other states are pursuing similar legislation. Please encourage Keller to act on HB 187 by calling him at 465-2186.
Stacey Finley
Anchorage
Comments (11)
Add comment"The American Psychiatric
"The American Psychiatric Association is looking to redefine autism, which may have a large effect on those currently suffering from the disorder.
The APA’s newly proposed definition for autism will categorize all degrees of the spectrum of the disorder under the same name. If approved, it will take effect in May 2013.
The real worry is that the new criteria will be narrower and that people with a certain subtype of autism may not fit into the spectrum,” Director of the Center of Autism Research Robert Schultz said."
Hmmmm, getting ready for BOCare? This autism treatment is really, really expensive, you know. Rationing, anyone?
And state mandates for coverage of certain, specific illnesses are exactly what is wrong with the one size fits all coverage we all pay into when we have group healthcare and even under some individual plans.
Don't use the redistribution excuse either. If we could pick and chose our individual coverage, like we can with car and house and life insurance, prices would necessarily come down.
So when the author of this letter writes, " Taxpayers also pay for ASD through special education, social community support services, and Medicaid", what exactly is she saying? We aren't paying enough, yet?
Reform healthcare and get it out of the government's hands.
Umm, Calypso, we've been able
Umm, Calypso, we've been able to "pick and choose" our insurance for decades, and prices have only gone up.
Maybe you can choose whatever health insurance plan you like, what with your fat trust fund, but the rest of us--those of us who WORK for a living--are restricted to the plans our employers can provide.
I wish I had a "fat trust
I wish I had a "fat trust fund" - you'd be so surprised, if you only knew!
That's exactly my point, divorce healthcare from the employer.
Then we're agreed: single
Then we're agreed: single payer it is! I never thought you one for socialized healthcare.
@p - wrong...
@p - wrong...
Oh? Then your alternative
Oh? Then your alternative must just be for everyone to use the emergency room when they get sick (and then come back repeatedly, since the ER doesn't provide long-term treatment for conditions).
That certainly sounds economically sustainable.
Or do you think private charities will step up and provide healthcare for everyone?
Or will the free market fairy wave her magic wand and make health insurance cheap and affordable for all?
Do tell us your solution, Calypso, since you apparently don't believe in tried and true socialized healthcare.
p, you must be talking about
p, you must be talking about this "tried and true socialized healthcare" and how well it works. No?
"The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched."
Or this from England -
"MPs were told to stress that the reforms, which will hand GPs more control over the £60 billion budget to commission health services, scrap primary care trusts and allow the private sector to play a greater role in the NHS."
I'm not clear what you're
I'm not clear what you're trying to argue here. Maybe you should spend more time crafting an argument and researching the issues and less time cutting and pasting sound bites from news and opinion articles.
Here p, I'll make it really
Here p, I'll make it really simple for you - socialized medicine is not sustainable and it doesn't work in the long run.
This might enlighten you as
This might enlighten you as to why you can't convince each other that you're right......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SplzYhjnoCg
@Calypso: it's worked for
@Calypso: it's worked for Canada pretty well, and England, and France, and the rest of modern Europe. In fact, it's worked really well for every country that has instituted it. Even [filtered word]-poor Cuba.
If you were really concerned about sustainability, you'd be engaged in a discussion about capitalism itself, since it is not, by nature, sustainable (but maybe with modifications it is).