Comments on: The Unintended Consequences of an Autism Mandate http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/blog/2009/10/28/the-unintended-consequences-of-an-autism-mandate/ Up To The Minute Analysis Of Ohio Public Policy Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:34:40 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1 hourly 1 By: Rob Sorensen http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/blog/2009/10/28/the-unintended-consequences-of-an-autism-mandate/comment-page-1/#comment-5342 Rob Sorensen Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:34:40 +0000 http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/blog/?p=4539#comment-5342 here's a link to the Michigan case: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/06/autism_bc.html and an excerpt: Indeed, as the plaintiffs pointed out, Blue Cross acknowledged in a 2005 draft policy that ABA is anything but controversial. That draft explicitly noted that ABA is "currently the most thoroughly researched treatment modality for early intervention approaches to autism spectrum disorders and is the standard of care recommended by" a number of professional organizations, including the Association for Science in Autism Treatment. Additionally, as the draft pointed out, the earlier the treatment is applied, the better the child's prognosis for a normal and productive life. During a court deposition, Dr. Calmaze Dudley, Blue Cross's medical director, said that he would “probably” employ the therapy if he had a child with autism. These findings call into question why Blue Cross refused to pay for the treatment in the first place. Indeed, the settlement came shortly after the court ordered Blue Cross to produce these documents. here’s a link to the Michigan case:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/06/autism_bc.html

and an excerpt:

Indeed, as the plaintiffs pointed out, Blue Cross acknowledged in a 2005 draft policy that ABA is anything but controversial. That draft explicitly noted that ABA is “currently the most thoroughly researched treatment modality for early intervention approaches to autism spectrum disorders and is the standard of care recommended by” a number of professional organizations, including the Association for Science in Autism Treatment.

Additionally, as the draft pointed out, the earlier the treatment is applied, the better the child’s prognosis for a normal and productive life.

During a court deposition, Dr. Calmaze Dudley, Blue Cross’s medical director, said that he would “probably” employ the therapy if he had a child with autism. These findings call into question why Blue Cross refused to pay for the treatment in the first place. Indeed, the settlement came shortly after the court ordered Blue Cross to produce these documents.

]]> By: Rob Sorensen http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/blog/2009/10/28/the-unintended-consequences-of-an-autism-mandate/comment-page-1/#comment-5341 Rob Sorensen Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:24:26 +0000 http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/blog/?p=4539#comment-5341 Your views are off. Any treatment covered by insurance is paid for by all who have insurance. that's how it works. New Cancer treatments are not just paid for by the people who benefit from them. As far as your statement that it will do little to help autistic children, why don't you include the findings that these new covered therapies (ABA to be specific) are endorsed by AAP, the surgeon general, and many other national organizations (Kennedy Krieger Institute is one). Speaking of California, you can keep track of the current lawsuit beign filed for the denials of coverage of ABA going on. The most recent ABA lawsuit was settled in Michigan, where Blue Cross Blue Shield agreed to pay for all ABA treatments, even those which were retroactive and had never been claimed, becauase their own internal documents and physicians stated in court that ABA was effective. (just google ABA lawsuit to read about). Also, the majority of ABA therapists are liscensed (BCBA). So stop cherry-picking your facts and tell the whole story. Your views are off. Any treatment covered by insurance is paid for by all who have insurance. that’s how it works. New Cancer treatments are not just paid for by the people who benefit from them.
As far as your statement that it will do little to help autistic children, why don’t you include the findings that these new covered therapies (ABA to be specific) are endorsed by AAP, the surgeon general, and many other national organizations (Kennedy Krieger Institute is one).
Speaking of California, you can keep track of the current lawsuit beign filed for the denials of coverage of ABA going on. The most recent ABA lawsuit was settled in Michigan, where Blue Cross Blue Shield agreed to pay for all ABA treatments, even those which were retroactive and had never been claimed, becauase their own internal documents and physicians stated in court that ABA was effective. (just google ABA lawsuit to read about).
Also, the majority of ABA therapists are liscensed (BCBA). So stop cherry-picking your facts and tell the whole story.

]]>