|
LEGISLATORS, PLEASE
HELP SAVE These services will provide speech, occupational and behavioral therapy for children with autism spectrum disorder. It will give parents a choice to bring their child to those providers who are familiar with this unusual disorder! HMO’s do not help us! That is why we are fighting for the Insurance Bill and have been for the last three years. Questions? (954) 647-0002 or e-mail Susan K. Goldstein, Vice President, Autism Society of Florida. Important Points to
Consider
Without intervention, our children
cannot learn the basic life skills and they may become a danger to themselves
and to the community. For every $1 we spend now we save $7 on lifelong care. The State provides coverage to all autistic children through
Medicaid for eligible citizens. Insurance companies do not offer the coverage,
even if you pay your premium and typically deny services to an autistic child. Parents who consistently provide therapeutic services,
with after tax dollars, often risk bankruptcy or sometimes fraudulently divorce
to qualify for Medicaid. In many cases this increases the financial burden on
the State, since the State must also then provide care for siblings and
indigent spouses. The average cost of cumulative therapy for children
with autism is approximately $20,000 per year and steadily decreases when
recommended frequencies are administered consistently. The targeted interventions are scientifically proven
effective treatments for autism. They have the equivalent effect as a surgical
procedure or medication treatments for other afflictions. Stroke victims receive speech therapy to retrain other
parts of their brain to speak. That same therapeutic concept is equally as, or
more effective, on a 4 year old whose language has not yet emerged. Autistic
children are denied services by HMO’s because they have not yet acquired
speech. Insurers place responsibility on DOE to teach speech. Insurance
companies and HMOs assert their coverage denials, citing a Supreme Court
decision (Cedar Rapids v. Garrett, March 3, 1999). Professional interpretation
of this Supreme Court ruling states,
“This case is about whether meaningful access to the public schools will be
assured, not the level of education that a school must finance once access is
attained”. Legally, the DOE is only required to meet the minimal criteria
to function in a classroom. Since autistic individuals do not generalize what
they learn to different environments, this minimum is not adequate to function
in daily life.
We must achieve equitable access and a better quality
of life for children and families not able to provide adequate care and
services for their children.
Talking Points on the Autism Insurance Bill |