Legislative Follies

[zstyles]

http://www.okobserver.net/2009/02/12/legislative-follies/

Great read...

Today, lawmakers spent at least twice as much time debating a non-binding resolution - opposing the transfer of "terrorists" from soon-to-be closed Guantanamo Bay to Oklahoma - as they did the critically-important issue of autism......

Since legislative Republicans aren't willing to demand insurers cover the epidemic - in effect choosing profits over children - they had to pass something. So they promoted this bill aimed at increasing the number of health professionals that treat autism.

Question: What good does it do to have more health professionals to treat autism if those with the malady can't afford the care?

[cannon_fodder]

I know we have gone over this before, but what is the current status of insurance treatment for Autism and what other diseases/conditions are treated similarly?  

Also, in a similar topic:  yesterday a lawsuit seeking damages for vaccination caused Autism was thrown out as the link between the two has been debunked by several studies.  Which seems to jive with the "sniff" test of the data (no correlation between vaccinations and the recent rapid increase).

And while I have you, you seem to be more in the know on the topic that I, has there been a recent change in diagnosis techniques or classifications that has caused all or part of the rapid increase?  From 2003 to 2006 the number of cases DOUBLED.  That is an insane increase and one would think correlating it with any national trend in infant or prenatal care would be fairly easy.  

http://www.fightingautism.org/idea/autism.php

Interestingly enough, the same site published a study that shows an inverse relationship to the diagnosis of Autism and Mental Retardation (general mental slowness diagnosis).  Suggesting that it is largely a difference in diagnosis.  Which raises the interesting implication:  is retardation covered by insurance but Autism not?

http://www.fightingautism.org/idea/autism-diagnostic-substitution.php

Digging through the same site I was amazed by the discrepancy in the diagnosis rates between states.  From 1 in 81 in Minnesota to 1 in 432 in New Mexico with the range in between just as varied (no large jumps/gaps).  Further supporting the notion that standards for diagnosing Autism is lacking and/or raising insurance questions (not tinfoil hatting here, I really just don't know).

http://www.fightingautism.org/idea/autism-state-rankings.php  

Feel free to jump in and correct my ignorance if you can.

[focuses]

Diagnosis and treatment for autism is difficult to find at any price currently so the bill is a move in the right direction.  And perhaps the insurance companies will see the value in paying for diagnosis and treatment.  Currently insurance will pay for therapy to treat the symptoms such as anxiety associated with autism but not the cause of the symptoms.  Therapy for life skills associated with living with autism could reduce the overall costs to both the insurance companies and society as a whole.

[focuses]

quote:Originally posted by zstyles

http://www.okobserver.net/2009/02/12/legislative-follies/

Question: What good does it do to have more health professionals to treat autism if those with the malady can't afford the care?

malady (plural maladies)

Any ailment or disease of the human body; especially, a lingering or deep-seated disorder.
A moral or mental defect or disorder.

A autistic person is different, yes; but autism is not a "malady".