I am a little amazed at the general lack of knowledge demonstrated on many levels in this discussion. There seems to be a general sense that these autistic students' needs should be shoved off on the school districts because treatment is "education." What about their first five years of life? What about the physical therapy schools are required to provide to autistic and students with other diagnoses which may or may not be recognized by an insurance company? In what universe have schools suddenly become responsible for providing physical therapy? Under ordinary circumstances, I would expect physical therapy of ANY kind to fall under medical intervention (insurance).

For Pete's sake, do any of you "let the schools deal with this issue because nothing has been scientifically proven to work" people realize that you are still paying for the treatments, whether it be by increased taxes in the property tax or increased insurance rates. The point is if there is early recognition and intervention, there is a greater chance at autonomy in school, thereby leading to a lower overall expenditure in later years! I recommend everyone do some basic autism research before they start saying autistic kids are naughty or need a whipping or whatever ignorance you can come up with. It is generally recognized that there are many different types of autism now, which is probably why there is a wide variety of response to a specific treatment plan.

I have had the priviledge of working with autistic kids in my son's class. I have run the gamut of emotions while working with them from amazement to frustration to astonishment. It became obvious to me the simply because their brains worked differently didn't mean they were diminished. These kids have blossomed over the years because of true committment by their parents, the schools and the community. I have no doubt that these beautiful kids will become the best they can be with the help of the whole community.

In my day they cured it with a switch.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6948119/

"No one else has been able to replicate that," says Lord. "That finding was an anomaly."

read the studies, read this link, Doctors who specialize in Autism will tell you no "treatment" has been proven. you want science to help you but then you ignore what the science is telling you. you can not pick and choose what you will believe or not believe, science is based on the facts as we now them and the fact is none of these treatment so far work. stop playing the blame game and take care of your children !

Please, enlighten me with your facts and cited sources. What are the success rates of these therapies? Do you know? Forty hours a week is not a therapy. There are no clinical studies that prove these therapies are effective: NONE!!! And the law will never change that fact. You have been fed a line by Doctors who want to cash in. How do I know? I emailed one asking for research sources and he could provide none. As with all children there is no such thing as a window of opportunity that closes. Recent research at the UWM by Paul T. Shattuck indicates that autistic people can improve throughout their lives. Here is a link to my source http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2...

if we had national health insurance, like every other industrialised country, autism would be covered.

Wildcat, my thoughts are with you and your daughter. I'm sorry to hear of your plight.

I have a daughter with Autism and due to insurance companies not paying for therapy, I had to wait over two years on a list for services. Now my daughter is almost 7 and it's going to be twice as hard to help her. If our insurance would have covered this, we would have been able to receive services right away. It may have made the difference of a lifetime. On another note Darwin1, you need serious help. I pray to God you have no children...and the "books" you are getting your info from are probably 20 years old. You need to update your resources, because you don't know what you are talking about.

Mental health benefits are not only therapy. For many suffering from different forms of illnesses, they are also on medication.

Cute name yourself. I love it when people on the internet base their opinions on an obviously fake profile name.

Trixie: What do you think most pyschological therapy is? A lot of is educating and offering suggestions for coping with disorders and illnesses. Maybe insurance companies should do away with mental health benefits as well if it is mostly unscientific treatment and education.

Here's the problem with having health insurance cover "treatment" for autism: the so-called "treatment," if you really look at what's happening during these sessions, is actually education. That is why insurance companies, on behalf of their customers - EMPLOYERS, yes the people who pay your salaries - considers it ludicrous to cover services that are education. Why aren't people wanting the educational system to take care of this "treatment?" That's where it belongs.

Everyone is complaining about treatments that are not scientifically proven. My daughter cannot get speech therapy to improve her speech so we can understand her because it is due to a developmental disability (PDD/autism) instead of an accident. Yes insurance SHOULD cover these kinds of treatments!!!

Mikki, I wasn't personally attacking you or I'd start with your name. You didn't read my post at all. Banks are required to lend in less than desirable areas. I never said anything about creditworthiness. I was clearly being fecicious regarding the hippocratic oath - and my point still stands. For the good of all, sometimes businesses are forced to do something that don't necessarily want to do.

Insurance is not a black and white issue. Not every plan must cover every ailment 100% for as long as the patient would like to pursue treatment. The basic question is should the state require autism to be covered by insurance companies - period. The companies would cover it as they would any other illness according to each individual plan.

I want them to cover multiple personality disorder.
We do too.

If you mandate the insurance companies to cover EVERYTHING, then most people won't be able to afford any insurance because it would cost too much.

Janesburg...okay, so you own a business, you want to government to force you to take in every customer, no matter what, even if you lose money on the deal?
Oh, and banks don't have to make loans to those with poor credit, do they??? Um, nope.
That oath "thingy", is not to do harm. Nobody is forcing doctors not to treat someone. So, answer to regulators, laws, etc. Whatever.
So, does that mean that I can screw up my credit and the government can force a business to grant me a car loan? LOL
I was making a point, but it's nice to be attacked for my "mentality". It's so refreshing to see that one can debate a topic without the sarcasm and personal attacks.

Health insurance should not be required to cover anything that does not have statistically significant proof of being effective except in the case of terminal illnesses. This is why chiropractic care should not be covered. It has no scientific backing whatsoever.

Mikki - that's a great mentality. I don't think banks should have to make home loans to consumers who live in low-income neighborhoods. Darn, the CRA gets in the way. I don't think doctors should have to help people if they don't agree with their choices or lifestyles, too bad they took that oath thingy...

Insurance companies must answer to regulations, laws, customers, judges and everyone else... just like every other business.

I think Federal program should be responsible for that program... not State? maybe I m wrong?

This is a Doyle issue that is going to happen, right or wrong. He's also lined up locals Sen. Robson and Rep. Hixson to look like it was their idea. That way they can come home from Madison and say they accomplished something.

for what people pay for insurance and the cost of health care they should cover whatever illness you have. they want to charge crazy amounts for tests that normally come back fine but want to deny coverage which is crazy.

They should also require health insurance plans to cover chiropractic care.

Autism is the "diagnosis de jour". ADHD was last week's flavor. If you look at the DSM (the source for diagnosis) the criteria are so vague that anyone could probably fit. Since doctors are now "looking" for autism, guess what? They are finding it under every rock.

--

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/overvie...

----

(copy and past the above - sorry...link thing didn't work ) Under these criteria, I could have probably justified myself and most of my friends as having autism in childhood.

I was referring to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders which refers to ADHD in regards to a child's success in school. So, if your child is hyperactive but getting A's they would not get a diagnosis of ADHD. Remember that. This so called condition is about conditioning children for the institution of school.

Autism has no known effective treatment outside of weak anecdotal evidence.

I am all about autism to be added to heath related coverage, but until mental illness, substance abuse and other "mind" issues are mandatory, I don't think this should hold presedence.

In 1998, The National Institute of Health held a Conference on ADD/ADHD. At the end of this conference they issued this statement: "....We do not have an independent, valid test for ADD/ADHD and there are no data to indicate that ADD/ADHD is due to a brain malfunction."
Copyright © 2003 Ablechild.org

ADHD is diagnosed by the use of a qualatative rating scale filled out by people who are not medical doctors. No blood test or genetics test or bone marrow or hair sample --nothing medical or quantitative. Name caller

Darwin1 and sluggo:

ADHD is diagnosed by either a PhD or an MD both of which are scientific. It is often genetic, and is not caused by school but often recognised by school teachers and counselors. You need to learn about the problem before you write stupid comments on it.

The government can force businesses to serve people. You know like black people, paying women the same as men. Way to think about it. The problem with ADHD is that its diagnosis in directly linked to a child's success "in school". In other words, without school there would be no ADHD. It is a disease that is caused by school.

Mikki
If the insurance companies want to be in business very long they would need to continue covering what you said.

Only dictatorships REQUIRE things of people. Business should be able to choose whether or not to cover autism in their health care plans.

Insurance has to pay for ADHD treatment - no scientific diagnosis there

be_happy. I was just stating a fact that the insurance companies should provide a rider of some sort to cover the cost of autism. Not the tax payer.

Dynaflite,

I respect a woman's right to choose and ultimately think if it is bad enough you will have to face God about the choice, but what you said is crazy.

tax payers should not have to coner any of this. insurance companys should cover testing. what do you think abortion is for. you are tested for these problems early on. if you choose to bring handicap kids in to this world it should be on your dime.

Insurance companies, frankly, are a business. They shouldn't be mandated to cover anything they don't want to. If they want to stop covering HIV-infected people, who's to stop them? Or cancer? Or whatever?
Who can force a business to serve certain people?

No, it has not been proven. If this Doctor thinks it has been then why hasn't he published a research paper supporting his claim? Because the research doesn't support his claim. Lovaas himself was only able to show improvement in 47% of his twenty-some subjects. What you also don't know is that 10% regressed in treatment. Almost all the evidence shown at the capitol is anecdotal. This is not science, this is a politician emotional manipulating desperate parents by pretending there is a proven treatment when there is none.

Wouldn't it help if ins paid for treatment, classes or whatever you want to call it, that helps parents learn about or teach their autistic children? Maybe parents can help each other? If you truly love your children I would hope you would want to help them get a decent education. This is the next generation that will be taking care of us or our parents in the future. I wish people would start taking things a little more serious, life isn't all fun and games. Maybe if some of the autistic issues were dealt with at an early age(prior to preschool) then our teachers wouldn't have so much work to do. Just a suggestion, I don't have all the answers.

Should be left up to the insurance company not the State.

Autism should be covered by insurance. I have seen the countless hours my daughter and son-in-law have spent trying to control the autism in their child; they are definitely far from lazy. My wife and I attended the autism hearing in the Capitol on Monday Feb. 9. The stories that were told from parents of children with autism were heart-wrenching. Doctors spoke on approval of the bill because it has been proven (their testimony) that if a child gets treatment as soon as they are diagnosed with the disease they can become functioning adults. Treatment can cost upwards of $60,000 per year. If left untreated some of these children with autism, when adults, could become wards of the state.
Insurance pays for treatment of obesity, alcoholism, smoking, etc. - all diseases that are self-induced. Autism is not self induced, is something that can be treated, and should be covered by insurance.

The state should just go with one of the 7 Universal health care plans that is sitting in the WI Legislature right now, and stop accepting big $$ from the insurance lobby, like American Family.

i have autistic children and i am against the state making insurance pay for "treatment" that has no science to back it up ! as a matter of FACT no study has been able to prove the use of these so called "treatments".
training your child like a dog is not a treatment, your just lazy parents !

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6948119/

The state should just keep their nose out of the health insurance business. Big brother doesn't have to make everything right. It really doesn't make any sense putting autism related coverage on someone who doesn't need to have it. Insurance is expensive enough already.

ja67,I think that is what the poll was asking.Should insurance have to pay,not taxpayers.I think insurance should cover EVERYTHING.People pay through the nose all the time to these companies and still cant get so much as an office visit paid for.Why pay for ANY health ins. if they dont cover all needs?

Why make the tax payers pay for this. All the people with autism children should seek help from their insurance company. The insurance company should provide a rider of some sort.

it should be a rider that individuals can pay extra for instead of the entire public having higher rates (by the way they are already way too high, imo). Just a thought, you can purchase riders for other options on insurances, why not for health.