Parents of autistic children vow to pursue insuran

[zstyles]

OKLAHOMA CITY -- A state House committee has refused to hear legislation that would require insurers to cover the diagnosis and treatment of autism.

But the parents of autistic children are vowing to fight on.

The legislation known as Nick's Law has been passed by the Senate and was assigned to the House Economic Development and Financial Services Committee.

The measure is named for 10-year-old Nick Rohde of Edmond who suffers from autism. His mother, Robyne Rohde, says she and other parents will continue to pursue the bill.

Sen. Jay Paul Gumm of Durant says he has filed an amendment to incorporate Nick's Law into legislation pending in the Senate. But committee chairman Rep. Ron Peterson of Broken Arrow refused to give it a hearing Wednesday.

[cannon_fodder]

What is the current law?  If you have health insurance do they drop you if your child is autistic or are they requiring new policies to include it?  If so, on what payment terms?

IMHO:
If you already insurance that is a risk the company assumed.  If you do not have insurance, legislation dictating losses to insurance companies seems out of place.  Seems care of such special needs might well be a proper purpose of the state.

I don't know enough about the issue, so I'm curious what the status quo is.

[zstyles]

Currently insurance companies will not cover therapy, speech and occupational for kids on the spectrum, they just don't because this has "never really" been an issue until recently. Now 1 out of 100 kids are being born with Autism and no one has answers and more and more parents are voicing their concern, its a national issue right now. Some are blaming the vaccine's that our kids are now getting which have changed over the last few years to give more and more to younger and younger kids at once which some parents say is causing this. There have been links to the preservative in the vaccines etc and more...but that isn't what this is about...if you search youtube, google etc you will find pages of info on the subject..

This is about having big insurance companies recognize this as a disease which can be treated but right now its being paid out of pocket no matter who you are or who your insurance company is because in Oklahoma they don't have to cover it. Arizona just passed a law that mandates that this be covered...this isn't some piddly law about new roads etc..this is about our kids and its a shame our lawmakers can't see this...

[RecycleMichael]

I thought it was interesting of the Tulsa World to put two stories on the front page today both dealing with the legislature.

The first one was a politician saying that a bill would unfairly raise insurance rates and the second one was requiring an ultrasound before performing an abortion.

Doesn't the second one costs insurance companies, too?

I agree with you zstyles. I can't believe that the committee chair wouldn't allow any of the citizens to even speak on the bill. It doesn't seem right.

[zstyles]

Great points...

Here is the link to the story today:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080410_238_A1_hBack27460

6 Million Annually is what he says it will cost the state? Seems like a drop in the bucket compared to what it will cost when they grow up and need even more help....plus how much are parents paying out of pocket that isn't being spent on other things in Oklahoma...myself..I am spending about 3,000+ a year....

[hoodlum]

I thought it was interesting that one had people wanting to legislate protection for unborn children and one had people ignoring legislation for helping those children already born, and that the kicker was that they were the same people.

[inteller]

we need to find out the root causes of autism before sending insurance companies on a wild goose chase to treat it.  I'm all for their cause and I understand their frustration.

Maybe pass a funding bill for autism research.

[cannon_fodder]

I tried to cure my ignorance last night, I learned:

1) 1 in 150 children are diagnosed with Autism or a related disease (like Asbergers).

2) The diagnosis has varying degrees from minor impact (most people would might notice the kid is strange, but little more [most kids imho ] - the most common diagnosis) to severe ("classic Autism" think RainMan)

3) The common perception that the rate has radically increased is medically viewed as wrong:

quote:Dr. Fred R. Volkmar, director of the Child Study Center at Yale University School of Medicine, said, "It appears that the rates are unchanged over the past 20 years or so, but it is important to track these numbers."

quote:The rise in the number of autism cases is not evidence of an epidemic, but shows that schools are diagnosing autism more frequently, researchers said Monday.

The methods of diagnosis, more knowledge with parents and a higher rate of evaluations and the recognition of "mild" forms of autism are generally held to account for the dramatic increase in diagnosed cases.   I can not say there is not a rise, just that those more in the know than I seem to think otherwise.

4) There is no proven link between a vaccine and Autism.  There have been studies on the matter and all have concluded that there is no causation effect shown.  The vaccines are given around the age of three, the same time Autism is usually diagnosed - hence the common perception.

The CDC concludes:

quote:Carefully performed scientific studies have found no relationship between MMR vaccine and autism.

Similar studies were done in Canada, Sweden, and by private foundations and no link has ever been shown.
http://www.askquestions.org/details.php?id=6083&gclid=CK6yufTc0JICFQwUiQodKVFFBQ
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/mmr_autism_factsheet.htm


Anyway, I knew little about it - so I figured I would share my newfound knowledge.  Helpful links/articles:

http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_home

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/health/09autism.html

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/04/03/autism-children-rate-20060403.html

[zstyles]

Before we get too off topic:Yes..this isn't for a treatment of the autism..this bill if for THERAPY treatment..speech and OT...you can't cure it and no one is asking for a medical treatment..this bill is simply asking for them to cover the small things that will help them live better lives...

Also I thought this was interesting..

OKLAHOMA CITY - House Democrats walked out of the chamber Thursday morning, angry about their treatment in committee meetings where they have not been allowed to ask questions.

The protest follows Wednesday's refusal by Rep. Ron Peterson, R-Broken Arrow, to allow Democratic members to question why Peterson's committee would not allow parents to speak in a public meeting on an amendment to extend insurance coverage to children with autism.

A week ago, Cherokee Chief Chad Smith also was not allowed to speak in a committee meeting where an "English-only" bill was being discussed.

Rep. Chuck Hoskin, head of the House Democratic caucus, said it was bad enough that members of the public were not allowed to speak, but elected representatives also are being denied the right to ask questions in committee and on the floor.

[zstyles]

cannon_fodder - Also I applaud your research into this..but again..this legislation isn't about curing it...it is about treating and helping these kids who need it with therapy...basic stuff that insurance currently denies..

[cannon_fodder]

I understand z.  I just didn't know much about the prevalence of Autism nor what diagnosis counted as "autistic."  I immediately thought of Rainman and savants - but clear with 1/150 such severity is not the norm.

[inteller]

you also have to take into account misdiagnoses and also the fact that documented diagnosis en masse has only occured in the last few decades.  Before they would just say your kid was retarded.

[rwarn17588]

I think this is a case where the legislature is being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

If an autistic kid gets proper therapy and treatment, he or she stands a much better chance of becoming a productive adult, thus holding down a job and becoming a taxpayer like the rest of us. Stuff like that will pay much more dividends than a kid who's a semi-invalid for the rest of his life.

It's kind of like states that are reluctant to fund college education for its citizens (who, say, maintain a C or higher grade). A person with a college education will earn a lot more money and thus pay more taxes than someone who bails on college. The initial outlay of taxes for college education will result in a lot more money back into public coffers later on.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

I understand z.  I just didn't know much about the prevalence of Autism nor what diagnosis counted as "autistic."  I immediately thought of Rainman and savants - but clear with 1/150 such severity is not the norm.

You are correct.  My wife teaches special ed and I was talking with her about this earlier today.  The covering for "autism" is probably the largest umbrella of all disabilities.

The biggest problem with autism is that there is no cure, no definitive treatment for the condition.  In fact, most children seem to benefit from homeopathic treatments (i.e. gluten free/casien free diets) rather than medicines.

Covering the condition under insurance is difficult because diagnosis is complicated and provided you have a diagnosis, treatment is speculative.

I would definitely argue that early intervention (Sooner Care), OT, PT, and other therapies provided by the state may be of greater benefit.

This seems to mirror the problems with Morgellon's disease, in that doctors can't seem to agree on how, or if it should be treated with medicine.

[zstyles]

Supporters of a proposal to require insurance companies to cover costs related to autism were denied an opportunity to speak during a state House committee meeting Wednesday as the measure died in a procedural move.

http://newsok.com/article/3227950/1207806161

By not allowing the proposal to be heard, Peterson and other members of his committee who were opposed to the measure could not be listed as having voted against it.

Peterson said after the meeting he had talked several times with supporters of Nick's Law and didn't need to hear their comments again.