(KMOX) — Claims made on a recent campaign flyer have blown up into a major issue between state Senate candidates Barbara Fraser and John Lamping.
They’re both vying for the seat being given up by Joan Bray, who’s being term-limited.
Fraser sent out a mailer saying Lamping was against health care coverage for children with autism.
Turns out Lamping’s 19-year-old daughter has a form of autism.
“Its amazing that my opponent says this is something that I’m running on,” says Lamping. “She’s fabricated this whole thing.”
To which Fraser replies, “Mr. Lamping proposal to let insurance companies sell policies across state lines would absolutely one-hundred percent allow insurance companies to deny coverage for autism.”
Listen to their full interviews with Charlie Brennan click here and go to the bottom of the next page.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
NY Governor vetoes bill to mandate autism health-insurance coverage
Gov. David Paterson has vetoed legislation that would require state-regulated health-insurance companies to cover “evidence-based, peer-reviewed and clinically proven” treatment and therapy for people with autism spectrum disorder, saying it would amount to an unfunded mandate because it would increase health-insurance premiums state and local governments pay and the premiums for Child Health Plus, a government insurance program for children whose families are not eligible for Medicaid. The total annual cost of the legislation could be $70 million, according to the governor, and the state budget does not include money to pay for that.
The cost of commercial health insurance would also grow if the legislation were implemented, and could lead to loss of coverage for some New Yorkers, he said in the veto.
The state has a number of programs that provide early intervention for children with autism and other developmental disorders, although many families have to pay a significant amount of money each year to get all the services they believe their children need.
Paterson, who has about two months left in his term, wrote that he is “extremely sympathetic to the very real struggles faced by families of individuals” with autism spectrum disorder, which he said is a priority for society to address. Autism spectrum disorder, which occurs in roughly one out of every 100 kids, is characterized by difficulty with speech and social interaction and repetitive behavior patterns. Symptoms vary depending on where children are on the spectrum .
“It will be a subject of my continued advocacy as a private citizen. But now I am governor, and I cannot sign a bill that would impose costs that the Legislature does not fund,” Paterson wrote.
The bill has been the subject of intense lobbying by autism advocates who support and those who oppose the legislation. It was sponsored by Sen. Neil Breslin, D-Delmar, Albany County, and Assemblyman Joseph Morelle, D-Irondequoit, Monroe County.
Opponents said it would hurt people seeking treatment for autism because of the “evidence-based, clinically proven and peer-reviewed” standard, which is not required for other medical problems, and would shift costs from insurance companies to counties and taxpayers for early intervention services.
The governor said another flaw in the bill is it would require the state Health and Insurance departments and a few other state agencies to develop regulations for health insurers within a year and update them regularly, but the state budget does not provide them with the extra resources they would need to do this.”
The cost of commercial health insurance would also grow if the legislation were implemented, and could lead to loss of coverage for some New Yorkers, he said in the veto.
The state has a number of programs that provide early intervention for children with autism and other developmental disorders, although many families have to pay a significant amount of money each year to get all the services they believe their children need.
Paterson, who has about two months left in his term, wrote that he is “extremely sympathetic to the very real struggles faced by families of individuals” with autism spectrum disorder, which he said is a priority for society to address. Autism spectrum disorder, which occurs in roughly one out of every 100 kids, is characterized by difficulty with speech and social interaction and repetitive behavior patterns. Symptoms vary depending on where children are on the spectrum .
“It will be a subject of my continued advocacy as a private citizen. But now I am governor, and I cannot sign a bill that would impose costs that the Legislature does not fund,” Paterson wrote.
The bill has been the subject of intense lobbying by autism advocates who support and those who oppose the legislation. It was sponsored by Sen. Neil Breslin, D-Delmar, Albany County, and Assemblyman Joseph Morelle, D-Irondequoit, Monroe County.
Opponents said it would hurt people seeking treatment for autism because of the “evidence-based, clinically proven and peer-reviewed” standard, which is not required for other medical problems, and would shift costs from insurance companies to counties and taxpayers for early intervention services.
The governor said another flaw in the bill is it would require the state Health and Insurance departments and a few other state agencies to develop regulations for health insurers within a year and update them regularly, but the state budget does not provide them with the extra resources they would need to do this.”
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Cost of Nevada autism care mandate debated
Oct. 07, 2010
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
By JENNIFER ROBISON
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
DUANE PROKOP/LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
For a change, we're not going to talk politics today.
Sure, Nevada's autism health-insurance mandate became a red-hot campaign topic in September, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., making a major issue of Republican candidate Sharron Angle's opposition to the pending requirement.
Rather than discuss the back-and-forth between the candidates and their affiliated interest groups, though, we want to ask a simple business question: How much will that autism regulation really cost, anyway?
A big Nevada insurer who didn't want to discuss the political hot potato on the record has crunched the numbers and found the mandate will add 2.2 percent, or about $100 a year, to Nevadans' annual premiums.
That's a "very significant impact," given that most new mandates add less than 1 percent to premium costs, said J.P. Wieske, executive director of the Council for Affordable Health Insurance in Alexandria, Va.
Autism's effect on insurance policies sold in Nevada will be steeper than usual because the condition costs so much to treat. A study from the Harvard School of Public Health found that autism care for one patient can run $72,000 a year. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that just under 1 percent of the country, including 730,000 people up to age 21, battles an autism-spectrum disorder.
Nevada's mandate requires insurers selling policies in the state to cover up to $36,000 a year of autism-related care starting Jan. 1, though the state exempted its Medicaid program after officials found it would cost the program $30 million over two years for coverage of autism.
Those are big numbers, so naturally, autism advocates and insurance trade groups alike make potent economic appeals supporting their side. Mandate proponents acknowledge it costs to treat autism, but they argue it's more expensive to let autistic kids languish and end up institutionalized or on disability for life.
Ralph Toddre, a commissioner for the Nevada Commission on Autism Spectrum Disorders, pointed to studies that say it can cost millions over a lifetime to provide custodial care for autistic adults who lacked treatment as children. One study, from the Harvard School of Public Health, pegged the cost at $3.2 million, though Toddre said he's seen reports pushing the estimate to as much as $8 million.
"The bottom line is, you can pay for it now, or you can pay an awful lot more later if you don't treat it," said Toddre, who has two children, ages 12 and 9, with the condition.
And Jan Crandy, a Las Vegas advocate with a 17-year-old autistic daughter, took issue with the 2.2 percent premium impact. She said actuarial research developed in early 2009 to support the mandate forecasted a smaller premium effect of around 1 percent.
Wieske's council published a 2009 study that also set Nevada's autism premium impact at roughly 1 percent, but Wieske said the group is updating its numbers, because the council's initial assumptions didn't account for "explosions" in the number of autism diagnoses and the condition's care costs. He said he now believes the Nevada insurer's projection of a 2.2 percent premium impact is likely to be at least fairly close to the actual effect. The state's actuarial study also acknowledged that the future costs of some therapies were "uncertain" due to increased insurance coverage.
Assemblyman James Ohrenschall, D-Las Vegas, sponsored the mandate, which passed the Nevada Legislature 63-2. It likely won't be clear until 2011 just how much the mandate will cost, Ohrenschall said, but with thousands of kids statewide grappling with autism-related conditions, the Legislature needed to assist.
"The market was not helping these children," Ohrenschall said. "These are families who work very hard and pay a lot of money to have health insurance, and then it didn't cover what they needed."
But any noticeable premium jump could price some Nevadans out of health insurance altogether, Wieske said.
"We know from past studies that fewer people buy coverage as it becomes more expensive. It's the simple reality," Wieske said. "There's a balancing act there."
Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for Washington, D.C.- based trade group America's Health Insurance Plans, said her association isn't concerned about the autism mandate itself. Rather, the organization's issue is with policy requirements in general, which she said typically become law without regard to their effects on health-care quality or costs. Nor do mandates always come from scientific evidence that certain treatments will help, she said.
The 50 states have passed 2,133 mandates on health insurers, according to Wieske's group. Nevada ranks No. 10 in the nation for its number of insurance mandates, with 52 such requirements.
"Over the last 20 years, we have seen the enactment of literally thousands of mandates across the country that have made the cost of coverage higher, and have put insurance coverage out of reach of more employers," Pisano said. "If you're a parent and you want services for your children, you're not going to be persuaded by that argument, but the other piece of this is that we've got consumers, patients and employers saying to us, 'If health-care costs continue to go up, we're not going to be able to afford what we have now."
Autism mandates in particular have grown popular among states in the past two to three years. Nearly half the states, 23, require insurers to cover it. Some of the surge comes from high-profile advocacy efforts in front of state legislatures, Wieske said, while part of the push involves sympathy for a condition that largely affects small kids. Plus, it's only been in recent years that doctors began to better understand autism and its treatments, he said.
But at least part of the jump in autism mandates originated with subtle attempts to shift the cost of care for the condition away from school budgets and into private insurance, Pisano said. Wieske agreed, noting that interventions such as speech therapy were typically covered through school districts and states, until widespread budget crunches pinched what the public sector could or would provide.
"It's absolutely true that we don't want to leave these children untreated," he said. "The question we have is whether insurance is the appropriate way to cover it. If these treatments were for an adult who had a stroke, you wouldn't find health insurance covering it. It might be covered under a long term-care policy. That's what this issue is really about -- money that was meant to be spent on (autism care) through various programs in schools is gone, so if they can, they want to foist those costs off onto insurers."
Advocates such as Toddre and Crandy say Nevadans are paying for autism care one way or another, and private health insurance provides the best venue for delivering treatment. More kids will be diagnosed with autism than with childhood cancers, juvenile diabetes and HIV combined, Toddre noted, yet insurance covers expenses for the latter three ailments.
"It's just not right. If there's an effective treatment out there that can help a lot of kids have a better quality of life and have a chance at a life as we know it, to deny that opportunity is just wrong," he said.
Besides, said Crandy, defraying the cost of pricey, unexpected conditions is the purpose of health coverage.
"A lot of people will never get cancer, and cancer treatment is expensive. That's what risk pools are for," she said. "Everybody is paying in so that everything that's covered can be treated."
Contact reporter Jennifer Robison at jrobison@review journal.com or 702-380-4512.
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
By JENNIFER ROBISON
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
DUANE PROKOP/LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
For a change, we're not going to talk politics today.
Sure, Nevada's autism health-insurance mandate became a red-hot campaign topic in September, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., making a major issue of Republican candidate Sharron Angle's opposition to the pending requirement.
Rather than discuss the back-and-forth between the candidates and their affiliated interest groups, though, we want to ask a simple business question: How much will that autism regulation really cost, anyway?
A big Nevada insurer who didn't want to discuss the political hot potato on the record has crunched the numbers and found the mandate will add 2.2 percent, or about $100 a year, to Nevadans' annual premiums.
That's a "very significant impact," given that most new mandates add less than 1 percent to premium costs, said J.P. Wieske, executive director of the Council for Affordable Health Insurance in Alexandria, Va.
Autism's effect on insurance policies sold in Nevada will be steeper than usual because the condition costs so much to treat. A study from the Harvard School of Public Health found that autism care for one patient can run $72,000 a year. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that just under 1 percent of the country, including 730,000 people up to age 21, battles an autism-spectrum disorder.
Nevada's mandate requires insurers selling policies in the state to cover up to $36,000 a year of autism-related care starting Jan. 1, though the state exempted its Medicaid program after officials found it would cost the program $30 million over two years for coverage of autism.
Those are big numbers, so naturally, autism advocates and insurance trade groups alike make potent economic appeals supporting their side. Mandate proponents acknowledge it costs to treat autism, but they argue it's more expensive to let autistic kids languish and end up institutionalized or on disability for life.
Ralph Toddre, a commissioner for the Nevada Commission on Autism Spectrum Disorders, pointed to studies that say it can cost millions over a lifetime to provide custodial care for autistic adults who lacked treatment as children. One study, from the Harvard School of Public Health, pegged the cost at $3.2 million, though Toddre said he's seen reports pushing the estimate to as much as $8 million.
"The bottom line is, you can pay for it now, or you can pay an awful lot more later if you don't treat it," said Toddre, who has two children, ages 12 and 9, with the condition.
And Jan Crandy, a Las Vegas advocate with a 17-year-old autistic daughter, took issue with the 2.2 percent premium impact. She said actuarial research developed in early 2009 to support the mandate forecasted a smaller premium effect of around 1 percent.
Wieske's council published a 2009 study that also set Nevada's autism premium impact at roughly 1 percent, but Wieske said the group is updating its numbers, because the council's initial assumptions didn't account for "explosions" in the number of autism diagnoses and the condition's care costs. He said he now believes the Nevada insurer's projection of a 2.2 percent premium impact is likely to be at least fairly close to the actual effect. The state's actuarial study also acknowledged that the future costs of some therapies were "uncertain" due to increased insurance coverage.
Assemblyman James Ohrenschall, D-Las Vegas, sponsored the mandate, which passed the Nevada Legislature 63-2. It likely won't be clear until 2011 just how much the mandate will cost, Ohrenschall said, but with thousands of kids statewide grappling with autism-related conditions, the Legislature needed to assist.
"The market was not helping these children," Ohrenschall said. "These are families who work very hard and pay a lot of money to have health insurance, and then it didn't cover what they needed."
But any noticeable premium jump could price some Nevadans out of health insurance altogether, Wieske said.
"We know from past studies that fewer people buy coverage as it becomes more expensive. It's the simple reality," Wieske said. "There's a balancing act there."
Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for Washington, D.C.- based trade group America's Health Insurance Plans, said her association isn't concerned about the autism mandate itself. Rather, the organization's issue is with policy requirements in general, which she said typically become law without regard to their effects on health-care quality or costs. Nor do mandates always come from scientific evidence that certain treatments will help, she said.
The 50 states have passed 2,133 mandates on health insurers, according to Wieske's group. Nevada ranks No. 10 in the nation for its number of insurance mandates, with 52 such requirements.
"Over the last 20 years, we have seen the enactment of literally thousands of mandates across the country that have made the cost of coverage higher, and have put insurance coverage out of reach of more employers," Pisano said. "If you're a parent and you want services for your children, you're not going to be persuaded by that argument, but the other piece of this is that we've got consumers, patients and employers saying to us, 'If health-care costs continue to go up, we're not going to be able to afford what we have now."
Autism mandates in particular have grown popular among states in the past two to three years. Nearly half the states, 23, require insurers to cover it. Some of the surge comes from high-profile advocacy efforts in front of state legislatures, Wieske said, while part of the push involves sympathy for a condition that largely affects small kids. Plus, it's only been in recent years that doctors began to better understand autism and its treatments, he said.
But at least part of the jump in autism mandates originated with subtle attempts to shift the cost of care for the condition away from school budgets and into private insurance, Pisano said. Wieske agreed, noting that interventions such as speech therapy were typically covered through school districts and states, until widespread budget crunches pinched what the public sector could or would provide.
"It's absolutely true that we don't want to leave these children untreated," he said. "The question we have is whether insurance is the appropriate way to cover it. If these treatments were for an adult who had a stroke, you wouldn't find health insurance covering it. It might be covered under a long term-care policy. That's what this issue is really about -- money that was meant to be spent on (autism care) through various programs in schools is gone, so if they can, they want to foist those costs off onto insurers."
Advocates such as Toddre and Crandy say Nevadans are paying for autism care one way or another, and private health insurance provides the best venue for delivering treatment. More kids will be diagnosed with autism than with childhood cancers, juvenile diabetes and HIV combined, Toddre noted, yet insurance covers expenses for the latter three ailments.
"It's just not right. If there's an effective treatment out there that can help a lot of kids have a better quality of life and have a chance at a life as we know it, to deny that opportunity is just wrong," he said.
Besides, said Crandy, defraying the cost of pricey, unexpected conditions is the purpose of health coverage.
"A lot of people will never get cancer, and cancer treatment is expensive. That's what risk pools are for," she said. "Everybody is paying in so that everything that's covered can be treated."
Contact reporter Jennifer Robison at jrobison@review journal.com or 702-380-4512.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Michigan Parents Testify Before Lawmakers On Autism Coverage
Tuesday a panel of parents and experts testified before state lawmakers in an effort to help get Michigan to require health insurers to cover treatment for autism.
It is a disorder which affects socialization and learning for some 15,000 Michigan children. "Many children with autism will need special education for their entire school career, and will need institutionalization as adults if they don't get the treatment," said Lorri Unumb, Autism Speaks.
Treatment that for many families is a huge financial drain. "We've borrowed. I've financed from my retirement account, whatever it takes. It's something that you would almost sell your soul for. Almost," said Stacie Rulison who's son has autism.
Experts say treatment for autism works but it's expensive. They say it can cost tens of thousands of dollars a year. That's why parents and experts are trying to convince lawmakers Michigan should join 23 other states that require health insurers to cover autism treatment.
"Sometimes I will be talking with families who are informing me of their plans to leave our state to go to some other state where they can receive this treatment that is covered by insurance," said Ruth Anan, Autism Expert.
Experts say it's an investment that will push insurance costs up slightly, less than a dollar a month for every individual. But they say it's well worth the price to help children with autism.
"If they do get treatment many will go on to lead productive and independent lives," said Unumb. Tuesday's public hearing is the last of four on autism health insurance reform. Lawmakers say they'll use the information to draw up a report before considering legislation.
It is a disorder which affects socialization and learning for some 15,000 Michigan children. "Many children with autism will need special education for their entire school career, and will need institutionalization as adults if they don't get the treatment," said Lorri Unumb, Autism Speaks.
Treatment that for many families is a huge financial drain. "We've borrowed. I've financed from my retirement account, whatever it takes. It's something that you would almost sell your soul for. Almost," said Stacie Rulison who's son has autism.
Experts say treatment for autism works but it's expensive. They say it can cost tens of thousands of dollars a year. That's why parents and experts are trying to convince lawmakers Michigan should join 23 other states that require health insurers to cover autism treatment.
"Sometimes I will be talking with families who are informing me of their plans to leave our state to go to some other state where they can receive this treatment that is covered by insurance," said Ruth Anan, Autism Expert.
Experts say it's an investment that will push insurance costs up slightly, less than a dollar a month for every individual. But they say it's well worth the price to help children with autism.
"If they do get treatment many will go on to lead productive and independent lives," said Unumb. Tuesday's public hearing is the last of four on autism health insurance reform. Lawmakers say they'll use the information to draw up a report before considering legislation.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Court Ruling in autism case hailed as a breakthrough for insurance coverage
Editors note: During the 2009 Oklahoma Legislative Session, Rep Kris Steele, drafted legislation dubbed as the Republican Autism Plan to create an ABA research project at OUHSC. Autism advocates informed him that ABA has over 25+ years of clinical research and we do not need to spend hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars to reinvent the wheel. This is nothing more than a stall. - Wayne
By Bryan Denson | OregonLive
For two years, Lisa McHenry fought a legal battle to force her insurer to pay for her son’s specialized autism therapy. But PacificSource Health Plans of Springfield refused and prevailed at every turn in court.
Then came a ruling this week by U.S. Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart in Portland, who ordered PacificSource to reimburse McHenry for the last eight months of her boy’s therapy.
“It’s the first decision in the country where a court has decided that ABA therapy (Applied Behavioral Analysis) is medically necessary for children with autism,” said Megan Glor, one of McHenry’s attorneys. “Insurance providers have been very reluctant to cover ABA therapy because it’s very expensive.”
The case offers a glimpse at opposing forces — insurers that won’t pay for the therapy and a nationwide parents movement pushing them to cover the disorder as a medical condition.
McHenry, who lives in Happy Valley, sued PacificSource in May 2008 to force the company to pay for her son Joe Joe’s therapy.
The case appeared to be resolved earlier this year, when Stewart ruled in favor of the insurer. The magistrate found that the boy’s therapist, Emily Hoyt, wasn’t an eligible provider under McHenry’s policy.
But in February, the state Department of Human Services certified Hoyt an eligible provider of therapy to Joe Joe, now 6.
On Tuesday, the judge ruled that PacificSource owed McHenry and her husband, Jon, their out-of-pocket expenses since then.
“Jon and I are absolutely over the moon. This is huge for Oregon,” Lisa McHenry said Wednesday. “This is huge for our family.”
Stewart ordered parties to the lawsuit to come up with a statement of past-due benefits.
Glor said she thinks PacificSource will be required to cover more than just the last eight months, but an additional $50,000 that the McHenrys paid for their son’s therapy from January 2007 to last February. A lawyer for PacificSource said the court has already ruled that the company doesn’t owe retroactive benefits.
“At the end of the day, the court said they don’t get any retroactive benefits,” said Richard Hansen. “She’s entitled to whatever costs she’s incurred since February, when the therapist became — under the court’s decision — an eligible provider.”
Source: http://www.oregonlive.com/happy-valley/index.ssf/2010/09/court_ruling_in_autism_case_hailed_as_breakthrough_for_insurance_coverage_of_special_therapy.html
By Bryan Denson | OregonLive
For two years, Lisa McHenry fought a legal battle to force her insurer to pay for her son’s specialized autism therapy. But PacificSource Health Plans of Springfield refused and prevailed at every turn in court.
Then came a ruling this week by U.S. Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart in Portland, who ordered PacificSource to reimburse McHenry for the last eight months of her boy’s therapy.
“It’s the first decision in the country where a court has decided that ABA therapy (Applied Behavioral Analysis) is medically necessary for children with autism,” said Megan Glor, one of McHenry’s attorneys. “Insurance providers have been very reluctant to cover ABA therapy because it’s very expensive.”
The case offers a glimpse at opposing forces — insurers that won’t pay for the therapy and a nationwide parents movement pushing them to cover the disorder as a medical condition.
McHenry, who lives in Happy Valley, sued PacificSource in May 2008 to force the company to pay for her son Joe Joe’s therapy.
The case appeared to be resolved earlier this year, when Stewart ruled in favor of the insurer. The magistrate found that the boy’s therapist, Emily Hoyt, wasn’t an eligible provider under McHenry’s policy.
But in February, the state Department of Human Services certified Hoyt an eligible provider of therapy to Joe Joe, now 6.
On Tuesday, the judge ruled that PacificSource owed McHenry and her husband, Jon, their out-of-pocket expenses since then.
“Jon and I are absolutely over the moon. This is huge for Oregon,” Lisa McHenry said Wednesday. “This is huge for our family.”
Stewart ordered parties to the lawsuit to come up with a statement of past-due benefits.
Glor said she thinks PacificSource will be required to cover more than just the last eight months, but an additional $50,000 that the McHenrys paid for their son’s therapy from January 2007 to last February. A lawyer for PacificSource said the court has already ruled that the company doesn’t owe retroactive benefits.
“At the end of the day, the court said they don’t get any retroactive benefits,” said Richard Hansen. “She’s entitled to whatever costs she’s incurred since February, when the therapist became — under the court’s decision — an eligible provider.”
Source: http://www.oregonlive.com/happy-valley/index.ssf/2010/09/court_ruling_in_autism_case_hailed_as_breakthrough_for_insurance_coverage_of_special_therapy.html
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Public Interest Lawyers Show Interest in Autism
Sept 28, 2010 This is a guest post by Lorri Unumb, Autism Speaks senior policy adviser and counsel. Lorri also teaches “Autism and the Law” at the George Washington University Law School.
Autism is a hot topic for discussion at various types of conferences these days, from epidemiologists to economists to educators. You still, however, don’t often see autism on the agenda at legal conferences. That’s why I was so excited over the summer to have the opportunity to speak about autism legal issues at a national conference of legal aid attorneys and encouraged by the keen interest demonstrated by the lawyers in attendance.
Every state in the nation has at least one legal aid organization, which provides legal services to the poor, and a protection and advocacy organization, which provides legal services for the disabled. Lawyers who work at these organizations, as well as public defenders (who work in the criminal arena), are typically members of the National Legal Aid & Defenders Association (NLADA). As set forth in its website (www.nlada.org) NLADA champions effective legal assistance for people who cannot afford counsel, serves as a collective voice for both the civil legal aid and public defense communities throughout the nation, and provides a wide range of services and benefits to its individual and organizational members. Founded in 1911, NLADA is the oldest and largest national, nonprofit membership organization devoting all of its resources to promoting justice for all in the United States.
Among its activities, the NLADA holds national conferences and trainings for public interest lawyers. My husband, Dan Unumb, who is Director of Litigation at South Carolina’s legal aid organization, proposed trainings on “Representing Families with Autism” for two of NLADA’s summer conferences held jointly in July in Chicago. NLADA enthusiastically accepted and supported the proposal.
The first workshop was presented as part of the Litigation and Advocacy Directors Conference, which is designed for experienced litigation and advocacy directors to assist them in identifying, promoting, and pursuing cutting-edge legal issues in their programs. A panel of five legal experts educated the attorneys on autism legal issues ranging from health insurance to special education to Medicaid. Presenting attorneys included Sue Tobin of Ohio Legal Rights Service and Sarah Somers of National Health Law Project on Medicaid issues, Tracey Spencer Walsh of Mayerson & Associates on special education law, and Dan and me on health insurance and other autism-related issues.
The second workshop was geared to front-line legal aid attorneys who handle day-to-day representation of low-income or disabled clients. At this workshop, Dan and I were joined by Kirby Mitchell, Managing Attorney of one of South Carolina Legal Services’ largest offices, to present a broad overview of legal issues surrounding autism including health insurance, special education, Medicaid and life-planning issues such as guardianship, conservatorships, custody and child support, hospital collection defense cases, bankruptcy, Medicaid trusts, tax planning, and Social Security disability actions.
The range of legal issues a family affected by autism may face is vast, and the need for lawyers, judges, and judicial staff to be educated on them is equally great. This outreach is critical to improving legal representation, judicial decisions, and the overall response of the legal system to the complex challenges posed by autism. This summer’s presentation was a good step in the right direction, and Autism Speaks is committed to making further inroads toward ensuring effective legal representation of families with autism.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Sharron Angle Pans Mandated Health Care Coverage For Autism Treatment, Maternity Leave (VIDEO)
Speaking at a Tea Party rally last year, Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle appeared to mock the notion that health care coverage for autism treatment and maternity leave should be mandated.
"Take off the mandates for coverage in the state of Nevada and all over the United States," she charged in making remarks that were captured on camera and now are being circulated by the Nevada State Democratic Party. "You know what I'm talking about. You're paying for things that you don't even need. They just passed the latest one, is everything that they want to throw at us now is covered under 'autism'."
In video shot of Angle making the criticism, she can be seen making air quotes as she says "autism."
The Tea Party darling went on to say, "So, that's a mandate that you have to pay for. How about maternity leave? I'm not going to have anymore babies, but I sure get to pay for it on my insurance. Those are the kinds of things that we want to get rid of."
"Take off the mandates for coverage in the state of Nevada and all over the United States," she charged in making remarks that were captured on camera and now are being circulated by the Nevada State Democratic Party. "You know what I'm talking about. You're paying for things that you don't even need. They just passed the latest one, is everything that they want to throw at us now is covered under 'autism'."
In video shot of Angle making the criticism, she can be seen making air quotes as she says "autism."
The Tea Party darling went on to say, "So, that's a mandate that you have to pay for. How about maternity leave? I'm not going to have anymore babies, but I sure get to pay for it on my insurance. Those are the kinds of things that we want to get rid of."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
