I guess it makes me cold hearted, but I cannot for the life of me see why it should be mandatory for insurance companies to cover autism. I think mandatory requirements on insurance companies already jack up the cost of coverage on the rest of us.
Now, I know the contrary arguments — spreading costs, rates of autism, possible linkage to vaccines, cost to handle the autistic in the system, etc. I get it.
But the arguments for making autism coverage mandatory can be made for a variety of other problems, though those others may not pull at the heart strings like autism.
We’re beyond a point in insurance policy and taxes where we add social policy heartstrings to what should be straight forward policies to provide access to insurance at affordable prices with the former and raising revenue with the later.
We should stop heading down this road and start back in the other direction.
{ 13 comments }
Erick,
I have an autistic child and I personally do not support this bill for many reasons. It isn’t really going to help the majority of the autistic children in this state. It seems to me and other parents that this is just a bill for the “national autism groups” to pass legislation in multiple states for their own feel good reasons. If this bill passes, it would do absolutely nothing for my child.
Even though we have great insurance, it excludes autism and all of its therapies. Getting services through the school system should be an acceptable route but the school systems do not have the resources or knowledge to accomplish it. And they aren’t motivated to actually help. When parents have to toss Autism for Dummies on the IEP table is a big clue. Therefore, we are left with jumping through the hoops of DCH and DFACS to get our children on Medicaid. Both those agencies play so fast and loose with Fed Regs that it is not funny. Some parents have been waiting for over two plus years for an ALJ hearing.
The problem is that most insurance policys are self funded and are not required to follow state mandates. The change needs to be on a federal level and not local. Paying out of pocket for the therapy is generally over $2000 per month. Take into account that one parent is usually having to leave their job to care for their child, the family income is greatly reduced. Parents have gone to extremes to provide for their children like sell everything they own on Ebay.
Regulating insurance companies is of course a left wing solution. Insurance is meant to be a voluntary agreement between the insured and the underwriters, spreading risk, ect… But the liberals have to do something, so they think. In addition to the regulations increasing costs, there’s plenty of market stickiness going around when the Doctors, Lawyers, and Insurance companies get together with the lobbyists and the politicians to actually push for some of the regulations. It’s just another sick disgusting orgy based in Washington DC.
Why not cover autism, which after all no-fault? The insurance companies, in many jurisdictions, are mandated to cover bad lifestyle choices, and thus spread the risks and increased premiums among the normal, clean-living, low-risk population.
Autism is bad, but what many don’t understand is the actual spell people seem to be under in regards to actually trusting the system with this condition. HELLOOOO? Anybody in there? I’m firmly convinced it’s caused by vaccines and thimerosal/mercury. It’s not difficult to come to this conclusion. If any group or book doesn’t include this possibility I’d run, not walk away, and fast. If you’re expecting “the system” to help or running to the “gubment” for solutions, you just drank the Kool-Aid.
Game Fan,
Amen. Perhaps we can have another GOP legislator propose mandatory mercury laden vaccines for our children. Balfour perhaps? Anybody?
I am really looking forward to the GOP starting to propose liberty, not tyranny.
Regulation of forced autism coverage is worthless, let the market decide what autism coverage will cost. If legislation like this is passed all insurance customers will pay the price.
Force big pharma to cover the cost of care for autistic children.
Right now, pharma has a brilliant strategy rigged. When you pay for a vaccine for your victim, I mean child, you are charged a tax–it was 75 cents per vaccine, not sure what is is for ’09–which goes into the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. This way when children clearly injured by vaccines have parents willing to challenge the system, they don’t get to sue the pharmaceutical company. Instead they go to court to prove the damages so they can garner compensation from the tax pool.
If we would just get back to the Constitution, a lot of the problems would be ironed out. All 50 states have mandated vaccination under the law–that is insane. Government has NO BUSINESS mandating our health care. Currently, Gov. Purdue can issue an order for state wide vaccination (in case of an “emergency”) and you are not permitted to opt out for any reason.
Word to the wise–ask to see the fine print on a vaccination before agreeing to having it injected into your child. The whooping cough vaccine, for example, is 100x more dangerous than contracting whooping cough. Also, for the brain dead mothers out there, it is NOT a good idea to inject a 7 lb newborn with vaccines-hepatitis or anything else. Wait until the kid is 2 yrs. old for heavens sake, so at least he has a fighting chance.
Oh, and while we (as in the royal “we”) are on the subject of infant care, be sure to follow the brilliant logic of the medical community and keep your baby on his back. That way he’ll have a deformed flat head, a very weak neck, an inability to push up, and should he start spitting up profusely, there’s a better chance of choking to death.
Babies need to be on their tummies on a breathable surface (the water proof mattresses–STUPID). Put several layers of tightly stretched toweling over your water proof mattress and then the crib sheet. The surface is breathable and absorbant and your baby will be safer and stronger and better looking sleeping on his tummy.
For more things you don’t want to know–see Jenny
My wife, who works with autistic children and she first mentioned this bill to me about a week ago. She illustrated the main problem with covering autism and the programs, like the one my wife works for, that help children with autism. It is also the problem in the medical insurance system which is part of the problem of why medical costs have sky-rocketed leading us down the road to socialized medicine.
My wife was excited about it because she could make nearly twice as much as she currently does if autism care was paid for by insurance. I told her that was the problem. With market forces taken out of her market, costs for autism care would increase drastically because it wouldn’t be the parents shopping for what is in their budget and care providers could charge whatever insurance was willing to pay.
Still, everyone ends up paying in higher overall insurance costs.
If we replace the current system with medical savings accounts, people could use those funds to pay for their child’s autism care and they would still have a reason to shop for the best program for the best price.
As an adult, though, it is not good for the back to sleep on the tummy…
I saw this quite a while back while working on commentary for SWGA Politics, but don’t remember the exact bill number.
Regardless, my points were in the same area as Shep’s, though I think I went more of a direct ‘government has no business in healthcare, period’ route.
This insurance issue is a catch 22. If you do not cover people society will pick up the cost one way or another. Also the difference between a life style choice like smoking and a random problem should be taking into consideration via the price or coverage.
At the end the exclusions by insurances companies do make the cost go away unless we have real reform. And part of that reform is tough choices on what we can treat via what people contribute. Should we treat a life time smoker for lung cancer who does not pay enough into the system and it was a behavior choice? Should we do a hip replacement on a 90 year old that never paid enough into the system? Should we spend 80% of healthcare on the last 6 months on someone’s life as lab experiment for knew doctors and interns? Should we cover Viagra before covering real tough health related problems on a person that do not contribute enough?
I am all for free choice just not on my dime.
This is not an easy conversation but why deal with the reality!
I have been reading this blog for years, but have never posted, mostly b/c there are only a few topics that would benefit from my commentary, but also b/c I usually disregard any off-base coments founded on impractical ideology, without basis in reality.
However, this is one where the conditions make posting irresistible.
I am an attorney and policy analyst, and have been working with the community of individuals with disabilities (all sorts of disabilities) for many years. Therefore, the policy of mandated coverage of autism is one that has been promulgated by professionals in the community for many years.
Why? B/c, in answer to some of the “laissez faire” theorists above, the market fails here. At least partially. You could see it as the market making a rational choice to exclude coverage for those conditions that are nearly guaranteed to be a losing proposition. But that still doesn’t get health care for individuals. That’s private insurers saying there is no way that premiums will cover the costs of autism care. Lots of long-term and other medical conditions will also fall into the no-profit zone, too, so there is a public health concern to get the health coverage policy right.
That is one reason why the State regulates insurance premiums- b/c if you want to look at what is “sticky” in the market, it is the complete power that private insurers would have over the health and welfare of citizens if they were unregulated. Someone above suggested that States should not mandate health care decisions at all. Seriously? As imperfect as the system is, at least we’ve practically eliminated a number of infectious diseases due to public health regulations. I for one, don’t want to see polio making a comeback. It is exactly the Constitutional job of the State to guard the public health and welfare- but I agree that liberty, to contract with insurers or make choices which don’t threaten others’ health, should be protected.
And as for the idea that this policy wouldn’t cover “self-funded” insurers, it’s my understanding that this law is based upon the power of the State to regulate public health and welfare, not a spending power, which would limit the scope of its mandate. As is, it should apply to all insurers who want to operate and sell policies in the State.
Nevertheless, needing this legislation is more a demonstration of government failure than anything else, b/c. as said above, the gov. system of addressing these non-profitable diseases (i.e. Medicaid, predominantly) is also failing citizens. Ideally, Medicaid could handle such care, as it is in the best position to manage the risks and widespread incidence of this public health issue. As for the market, it will never voluntarily lose money, nor will it recognize the public health benefits that care for autism yields. It will not recognize anything from the the potentially brilliant productivity of individuals with autism who receive care, nor the ancillary values brought by social diversity and inclusion. But the State should, and arguably does, recognize that with this policy, and that is exactly why the State should have market participation in medical care. It is, however, truly unfortunate that Medicaid is so under-funded, and that so much time and money is spent fighting expenditures for such needed care, rather than being focused on increasing efficiency, reducing fraud, and gathering more funds, perhaps even by ways of public-private partnerships.
But the private insurers are not lending a hand here, so their hand must be forced. Undoubtedly, the next time they request premium increases, little will be done to challenge their calculations. So don’t worry about the insurers- they’re covering themselves. Now, if you’re upset that your policy premiums may rise due to the policy change, I suggest you do what you can to get Medicaid fixed, b/c any increase in taxes that would result from Medicaid’s proper coverage would certainly be offset by savings in Medicaid efficiencies. In fact, you may save tax dollars. And you would also get the public health benefits of such care, which could in fact include proper care for your Alzheimer’s or other long-term disability when you’re in a nursing home.
So, it’s not just about having a heart. I can’t imagine any one would think that health care should be completely unavailable for those earning less than $100K a year. Rather, it’s about recognizing the possibilities- including disease- that lie within our own hearts, and recognizing that the way we care for every other heart on this planet will effect how ours is, and will be, cared for.
Just posted to GLW, but according to Eric Johnson, the Rules Committee put this bill on the calendar for tomorrow.
Bill-
I dunno. I sleep on my tummy, and haven’t noticed any resulting back problems…but I don’t use a pillow, so maybe that’s why.
Comments on this entry are closed.