Bad Medicine : Every one will pay for inaction on autism legislation

BY ARNOLD HAMILTON


...So let's get this straight: The Republican-majority Oklahoma Legislature is seriously discussing a bill that could make it more difficult for regular folk to circulate initiative petitions and get them on the ballot?

The same Oklahoma Legislature that itself placed 10 of 11 referenda on last year's ballot -- most wedge issues designed to ignite turnout among constituencies that tend to favor the GOP majority?

The same Oklahoma Legislature whose Republican members for years huffed and puffed about Democrats "not trusting the voters" to decide important issues?

The same GOP majority Oklahoma Legislature that refused this year to let the voters decide whether insurance companies should be required to cover treatment for children with autism?

Seriously?

All you need to know about what who wields the real power at N.E. 23rd Street and North Lincoln Boulevard in Oklahoma City is this: Big insurance's deep pockets can deftly turn referenda-happy Republicans into a referenda-killing machine.

Oklahoma families crushed by the costs of uninsured treatment for their autistic children have worked vainly for several years to get relief from their lawmakers. But there hasn't been an insurance mandate since Republicans took control of the state House six years ago -- the last one ordered was for mammograms.

And before you start grinding your teeth about "mandates" or "government regulation" or "interfering with free enterprise," remember this: 1 in 100 children is now diagnosed with the malady.

This is a ticking time bomb -- for Oklahoma taxpayers. You see, children treated for autism often can become productive, taxpaying adults. If they are not treated, who do you think will most often end up paying for their adult long-term care and housing? Exactly -- the taxpayers. And the costs are likely to be enormous.

Big insurance feigns poverty, but the truth is, companies are earning record profits. Moreover, there is plenty of evidence that treating children with autism isn't burdensome for these companies that clearly care about one thing and one thing only: their bottom lines.

Already, 21 states have passed legislation that mandates some form of autism treatment for children. Oklahoma lawmakers, meanwhile, play a cost-shifting game -- protecting big insurance (among their biggest campaign donors) and leaving a mountain of future expenses to taxpayers.

Why should current legislators care? They'll be term-limited from office before the you-know-what-hits-the-fan. Future lawmakers can clean up the mess.

What's even more appalling is that Oklahomans overwhelmingly believe a mandate is warranted -- 79.5 percent in a SoonerPoll last spring. In addition, 66.6 percent of the likely voters surveyed statewide said they would favor a state ballot initiative requiring health insurance to cover the diagnosis and treatment of children with autism.

So, Democratic Rep. Mike Brown of Tahlequah introduced legislation this year that would give voters the chance to decide the issue. It looked like the perfect plan: How could the Legislature's Republican majority -- which prattles endlessly about "trusting the voters" -- not trust the voters on this issue?

Initially, Brown's HB 1624 was assigned to the House Insurance Committee. But in late February, it was shifted to the House Rules Committee -- the graveyard for legislation the speaker and powers-that-be want to kill.

Brown says the speaker told him he wanted to let last year's legislatively enacted reforms take full root before considering a statewide vote on the issue. What reforms? Lawmakers approved a measure aimed at increasing the number of health care professionals in Oklahoma with expertise in treating the malady.

It was pure window dressing -- more treatment will be available for those who can't afford it. And what is likely to become of those new autism-care professionals, trained at state taxpayer expense? Most likely will end up practicing in other states that demand insurance companies to cover treatment for autism -- states like all our neighbors: Texas, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Louisiana and Arkansas.

Brown hasn't given up. He proposed an amendment to Speaker Kris Steele's HB 2130 that addresses the duties of the Health Care for the Uninsured Board that would mandate autism coverage. It's time, Brown says, for "an honest and open debate about the lifelong consequences of failing to provide these services in crucial developmental years."

"In the end, it's not just the children but also the families who will pay for our inaction on this issue. The emotional turmoil parents face when unable to provide proper medical care for their child is unimaginable -- especially as more studies are released that prove the powerful impact early intervention can have on a child."

You can bet Republican legislative leaders will work to kill this proposal, too. But it only serves to reconfirm their venality -- big insurance mercenaries who are callous to the plight of suffering Oklahoma families and indifferent to the catastrophic costs that will be borne by Oklahoma taxpayers.

Even worse, the state Senate recently approved Senate Joint Resolution 37 that would place a referendum on the ballot aimed at making the initiative petition process even more difficult.

Currently, those seeking to place a measure on the ballot can collect signatures anywhere in the state. Most, as you might guess, focus their efforts in the state's two largest metropolitan areas -- Tulsa and Oklahoma City -- with about two-thirds of the state's population.

Sen. Mike Schulz's plan -- which would be put to a statewide vote if also approved by the House -- would amend the Constitution to require a percentage of the signatures come from each of the state's five congressional districts.

"It's simply to bring some equality to the process," the Altus Republican says.

You can't simply sit in a metro area and gather all the signatures needed to get something on the ballot."

I've long argued that lawmaking-by-initiative is a dicey business. We have representative government for a reason -- we elect and pay (handsomely) proxies to go to the Capitol, study the issues and make their best judgments while we carry out our everyday lives. If we don't like the way our representatives vote, we elect someone else.

As far as I'm concerned, 11 state questions on the ballot last year was way too many. But I find it more than a little ironic that Republicans who were responsible for placing 10 of them on the ballot in 2010 now are working to make it more difficult for non-elected officials to petition their government.

Either you trust the voters or you don't.

--(Arnold Hamilton is editor of The Oklahoma Observer; okobserver.net)

Nick's Law falls short again in the OK Legislature

COMMENTARY

The City Sentinel
By Wayne Rohde
March 10th, 2011

As the Oklahoma Legislature closes out the first month of this new session, I am concerned that Oklahoma is missing out on a great opportunity to say to the world, to say to this nation, that we rise above politics, we rise above the rhetoric that divides us on some many levels, and tend to the needs of those in our society are the most vulnerable, those with special needs.

For the past several years, the Legislature has seen a surge in the advocacy of parents, medical practitioners, and concerned citizens to pass Nick’s Law, legislation to require insurance companies to provide medical coverage for treatments and therapies that are medically necessary to combat the symptoms of autism.

And for the past several years, the Legislature, instead of discussing and debating the complex issue of insurance coverage for children with autism, have sided with the special interests that control the state capitol, and have continued to turn their backs on the most vulnerable members of our society.

During this session, Speaker Kris Steele, at the last moment, moved HB 1624 out of the House Insurance Committee where it was scheduled to have a public hearing, to the House Rules Committee, where it will die. This action is very typical of the House since we first introduced Nick’s Law in 2008. They find ways to kill the bill instead of allowing the members vote on the bill on the floor of the State House.

But we will not be defeated. We will not turn our backs on our children and we will prevail. The costs are too high if we don’t. Many of our children can be removed from the iron claws of autism and become self sufficient taxpayers of the future. But to continue turning our backs and kicking this problem down the road, the taxpayers will be faced with a large burden of providing state services for these children who will become adults and require around the clock care. It is truly a fiscally conservative approach to address this problem now instead of spending 20 to 30 times the cost in the future.

For those in opposition that often quote that passage of Nick’s Law will only drive up insurance rates in Oklahoma, I have this question. If so, then prove it. Show us the credible economic data that shows that Nick’s Law will drive up insurance rates significantly. I can help you with your research. There is no credible data. Simply put, in the other 23 states that passed similar legislation, there has been no significant increase to premiums.

For those in opposition that Nick’s Law is nothing more than government run health care, please look carefully at the states that implemented this legislation. I will argue that it creates a more efficient free market system after in acting this mandate. Insurance companies will contract with medical providers, creating a demand for qualified therapists and doctors to open up clinics and create hundreds of medical jobs, and provide a greater access to health care for all.

For those in opposition that Nick’s Law will only serve a small number of children, these providers will be able to serve not just those with private health insurance but those with TriCare, SoonerCare, and the self insured.

This is all evident in the states that have passed similar legislation. I will take this evidence as something that can be replicated in Oklahoma. And take a look at our neighboring states, we are surrounded by states that clearly understand this issue and have moved forward to address this epidemic. But Oklahoma seems to continue to lag behind the nation in health care rankings.

Last year, SoonerPoll conducted a statewide poll on if the voters of Oklahoma would support Nick’s Law. In one of the largest favorable outcomes, 79.5% of the voters support Nick’s Law with a surprising 70% of Republicans. This should not be a partisan issue and with this poll, it is clearly has bi-partisan support. The results show that this issue transcends across all demographics of political party, economic divisions of income levels, and religious beliefs.

But our state legislature and now Speaker Steele has decided once again to listen to the special interest groups and lobbyists instead of the voters of Oklahoma. The voters understand the issue and now it is time for the legislature to represent the people of Oklahoma, not the selfish interests. So I call on Speaker Steele to allow Nick’s Law to come to a vote of the people. HB 1624 asks for it and the people of Oklahoma demand it.

Ark Gov signs autism insurance coverage bill into law

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (KTHV) -- Gov. Mike Beebe will sign into law a bill requiring insurance companies to cover autism diagnosis and treatment.

There is new support for autistic children in Arkansas. Tuesday, Governor Mike Beebe signed an autism bill into law. It requires most health insurance companies to cover autism diagnoses and treatment for children under 18.

It's a signature with the power to lift a financial weight. Ten-year-old Briar Miller with his mom Dayna were in the center of it all. "I'm glad the law passed we've been trying to pass it for two years," says Briar Miller.

Most major health insurance companies can no longer deny Arkansas families coverage for treatment for children with autism. "I just truly believe that children in Arkansas deserve the same right as children across the United States especially when it was a research proven approach," says Dayna Miller.

Miller estimates she borrowed $100,000 to pay for applied behavior analysis. It's treatment using positive reinforcement recommended by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Miller says for Briar it works. " He went from a nonverbal child, he's in the fifth grade getting straight A's although he brought home a B last week that's we're going to get up," says Miller.

The CDC estimates that 1 in 110 children are diagnosed with autism and that ABA treatment ranges anywhere from 30 to 60 thousand dollars a year.
Veronica Tess Myers says in 1996, when doctors diagnosed her son Alexander with severe to moderate autism.

You definitely feel alone, there's a lot of tears being cried there's a lot of frustration there's a lot of sitting alone trying to figure out what the next step is going to be to help you child to succeed," says Myers.

They told her told her it was either ABA or a group home for life. "And that's the part that breaks my heart that so many families want to help their child and couldn't get therapy," says Miller.

Danya Miller says she was working at a factory when Briar was born. She went back to school and became a speech pathologist to help him and other children with autism. Arkansasautism.org ­estimates that one in 93 boys and one in 345 girls in the state are autistic.

New Hampshire Bill to repeal Autism Coverage

"The lunatics are on the grass" - editor


BILL COULD STOP COVERAGE

Rindge lawmaker hopes to reduce what insurance companies have to payBy Dave Eisenstadter
Sentinel Staff
Published: Sunday, February 27, 2011

A local Republican legislator says he is trying to undo insurance regulation passed in the last four years while Democrats were in charge.

House Bill 309, solely sponsored by John B. Hunt of Rindge, would repeal a law requiring insurance companies to pay for early intervention autism spectrum disorder treatment. The law went into effect on Jan. 1; its prime sponsor was Suzanne S. Butcher, a former Democratic representative from Keene.

Meanwhile, families and educators attended an Autism and Asperger’s Expo at Antioch University New England Saturday, where autism support advocates denounced the bill.

Kirsten M. Murphy, director of the N. H. Council on Autism Spectrum Disorders and a parent of two autistic children, said the law mandating early intervention autism therapies has further-reaching implications than simple monetary ones.

Out of all young children identified with autism spectrum disorders and treated using early intervention therapies, 47 percent will enter kindergarten at a level equivalent to their peers, and an additional 40 percent will make significant progress, according to Murphy.

Hunt said legislators could ask insurance companies to give them an idea of the new laws’ effects on premiums.

“Now that we have changed leadership, we have a rare opportunity to re-look at all these mandates and get the insurance companies to tell us how much they really do cost,” said Hunt, formerly chairman of the Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee, which is hearing the bill.

Hunt said it was appropriate for insurance companies — the businesses regulated by these recently passed laws — to provide information that could enact the repeal of those laws. He did not think the businesses would provide inaccurate or misleading information, he said.

Murphy said the law would save money in the long term.

A 2006 Harvard Study conducted by assistant professor Michael Ganz revealed it can cost about $3.2 million to take care of an autistic person over his or her lifetime. Ninety percent of those costs are incurred during adulthood, according to Murphy.

But if treated with early interventions, those with autism have a good chance at being productive wage-earners and tax payers, Murphy said.

Hunt brought the bill forward because Democrats refused to compromise or listen to Republican concerns, he said.

“When I was chair, we compromised more than they did,” Hunt said.

The legislation targeted by Hunt’s bill affects one third of New Hampshire’s population, Hunt said. The laws only affect state regulated health plans and do not affect Medicare or Medicaid recipients or those insured through large employers.

Those with state-regulated insurance are the most vulnerable to insurance premium increases, according to Hunt.

Hunt’s plan is that by reducing the amount insurers have to cover, insurance premiums will also go down. The bill, however, would not mandate insurance companies to lower their premiums, Hunt said.

Without health insurance companies offering access to such treatments, there is no access to them, Murphy said. Schools are not required to deliver medical treatment.

“I think we always have to be concerned about legislation like this,” Murphy said, referring to House Bill 309. “My hope is the Senate will act as a voice of moderation here.”

Beyond autism diagnosis and treatment, the bill takes aim at half a dozen other coverage requirements, including testing for bone marrow donation, obesity and hearing loss.

Murphy said Saturday’s expo at Antioch provided parents and educators needed information about autism treatment and local resources. Among them are an Autism and Asperger’s support group, which meets the second Wednesday of each month, and an autistic child movement group headed by Antioch assistant professor Christina Devereaux.

Fuller Elementary School staff members Jane C. Trombi and Patti L. Vosteen, who work regularly with students with autism spectrum disorders, agreed that the expo was useful.

“I’ve been to a lot of different presentations and a lot of what I’ve heard today is what I’ve heard before: how every child is different,” Trombi said. “Every child needs a different program.”

For Murphy, getting help through early diagnosis and intervention treatments and through participating in events like the Antioch expo is vital for both parents and educators in dealing with autistic children.

“Parents don’t know what to ask for and schools don’t know what to offer.”

Dave Eisenstadter can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1432, or deisenstadter@keenesentinel.com

Defining 'Essential' Care

Regulators Move to Specify Coverage Under Health Law; Insurers Seek Flexibility.

By AVERY JOHNSON
WSJ February 28, 2011

Maggie Haslam's five-year-old autistic son, Drew, has undergone intense behavioral, physical and speech therapy that helped him learn to dress himself and communicate such concepts as "over" and "under."

Drew Haslam, 5, is autistic and has received care that may not be covered under the new health law.
.The therapy greatly helped Drew, said Ms. Haslam, a public-relations agent in Silver Spring, Md. But was it essential?

The next big issue for the federal health law as it moves toward implementation is how regulators will define so-called essential benefits—the basic medical services that health plans must cover under the law.

The legislation gives 10 categories of care that plans must provide for customers of the health-insurance exchanges that are launching in 2014. But the law leaves details up to regulators, who are now starting to develop the rules.

Habilitative services, used by such patients as Drew, have become a contentious point in the debate. Unlike rehabilitation, which helps patients recover skills they have lost, habilitation helps patients acquire new skills. Such services can be costly because the process can take years, and insurers haven't typically covered many of them, sometimes labeling them educational or experimental.

The debate over exactly what habilitative services to include in the new rules—and how much of them—exemplifies the challenge of defining what health benefits are truly essential.

This week, insurers and patient groups are expected to face off at a meeting hosted by the Institute of Medicine, which has been charged by the Department of Health and Human Services with making recommendations on defining criteria for deciding what are essential benefits.

Benefits Questions
Here are the 10 general categories of benefits that the health law considers essential, and some services within each that could trigger debate as regulators develop rules governing insurance plans that will be sold on the exchanges:

Ambulatory patient services

-Varicose vein treatment

Emergency services

-Nonemergency care administered in ER

Hospitalization

-Total hip replacement

Maternity and newborn care

-Fertility treatments

Mental health and substance-abuse disorders

-Unlimited length of stay in a facility

Prescription drugs

-"Lifestyle" medications such as Viagra

Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices

-Unlimited physical therapy

Laboratory services

-Biometric testing, including genetic markers or DNA analysis

Preventative and wellness services and chronic disease management

-Nutritional counseling

Pediatric services, including oral and vision care

-Braces

Source: WSJ Research .Lobbying on all categories has been intense, and the institute has received over 330 comments from groups including insurers, patient advocates and medical professionals.

America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group, is emphasizing to policy makers and regulators that costs will rise if insurers have to cover too many specific services, and if they aren't allowed to limit the number of reimbursed services.

Insurers want to keep the categories as broad as possible so they have flexibility in designing benefits packages.

Others, especially in the medical and patient-advocacy communities, are pressing for specifics to be set out and coverage limits to be lifted.

"All of it needs to be spelled out because if it isn't spelled out it will be denied," said Andrew Racine, chief of the pediatrics division at the Children's Hospital at Montefiore in New York. He submitted testimony to the institute on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Habilitative services have been particularly contentious because they can be costly and difficult to define. A three-year-old child who lost speech after a brain injury would require rehabilitation. But a three-year-old child with autism who has never learned to speak would require habilitation, said Marty Ford of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities.

In addition to autism, habilitative services could be used to help children with cerebral palsy learn to walk, children with Down syndrome to acquire language skills or people with schizophrenia to learn basic social skills.

A study by consulting firm Oliver Wyman estimated behavioral programs can cost about $60,000 yearly when a child is young, dropping dramatically after that as he or she becomes more independent.

For Drew Haslam's services, the expenses mounted after a state program for infants and toddlers ended and the family's insurance limited their coverage. Ms. Haslam said they spent $20,000 a year on the therapies until the time and expense became overwhelming.

Because treatments can last years, insurers warn that unlimited coverage could push up the prices of policies that will be sold through the insurance exchanges.

"The legislation raises the question: Are we going to have unlimited amounts of physical therapy? That would add certain costs," said Robert McDonough, Aetna Inc.'s head of clinical policy research and development.

Jeffrey Kang, Cigna Corp.'s chief medical officer, who submitted a statement to the Institute of Medicine in January, suggested that many habilitative therapies might not be included in the most basic plan sold on exchanges, known as bronze plans. Instead, he said, they could be covered starting with the silver plans that are the next most expensive.

"What we are suggesting is that we ought to make the minimum to protect the healthy population against catastrophic events," Mr. Kang said.

Insurers say they want the flexibility to design plans for consumers with different needs. "A 25-year-old doesn't think they will need habilitative care, and they need to be able to afford the benefit package they pick," said Virginia Calega, Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield's vice president of medical management and policy.

Patient advocates say that consumers shouldn't have to pay extra for habilitative coverage.

"Health care for autism shouldn't be like the sporty option on a car," said Stuart Spielman, senior policy advisor for Autism Speaks, a patient-advocacy organization.

The lowest-level policy should cover all eventualities, said Dr. Racine.

"You don't know if you will need this stuff. That's what insurance is all about."

Write to Avery Johnson at avery.johnson@WSJ.com

Trying to Get Nick’s Law on the Ballot

Filed by Michael Cross
February 24, 2011
KOSU Radio

Supporters of legislation to require insurance companies cover children with autism are upset by a move by the State Speaker of the House that they say will kill the bill.

Supporters of Nick’s Law say the House Speaker moved HB 1624 from the Insurance Committee to the Rules Committee in order to stop it from moving forward.

The bill’s author, Representative Mike Brown says the bill which would have put Nick’s Law before voters was expected to get a fair hearing before it was moved.

“We would have been able to present facts from most every other state save I think three or four other states that have not passed legislation such as this that would actually give children coverage with insurance on this issue.”

House Speaker Kris Steele says since it’s going to a vote of the people it belongs in the Rules Committee.

But, he also admits a program to provide more doctors, treatment providers and therapists just started in January.

“I’m in favor of giving those reforms an opportunity to work before we go down the path of pursuing an insurance mandate that in my opinion will increase health insurance costs.”

Representative Brown says if Nick’s Law doesn’t get a hearing than maybe supporters should look into the initiative petition process to bypass the legislature.

New "Nick's Law" bill gets shuffled into legislative "graveyard"

By Andrew W. Griffin

Red Dirt Report, editor

Posted: February 23, 2011

reddirtreporter@gmail.com

OKLAHOMA CITY – Oklahoma families with autistic children hit another roadblock this week when they discovered the GOP-led House leadership made a last-minute decision to have renewed discussion of “Nick’s Law” moved from the Insurance Committee to the Rules Committee.

The committee was scheduled to meet on Thursday and folks with autistic children had planned to speak to the committee members before learning of the switch. Now, many are having to regroup and reassess with the knowledge that the deadline to get bills out of committee is next week.

It was in January when Rep. Mike Brown (D-Tahlequah) filed a bill, HB 1624, that would allow voters to decide in the form of a State Question on the ballot as to whether insurance companies would cover cost of treating autism for children 21 and younger.

Brown spoke to Red Dirt Report from his office at the Capitol on Wednesday morning and said that the long-term costs to the state will be “astronomical” if these autistic-affected children aren’t treated appropriately before they become adults.

Brown highlighted the sad story of 7-year-old Savannah Martin an autistic child from Lawton who drowned in a pond on Sunday. Brown said the story about Savannah, featured in The Oklahoman, noted how the girl was going to New York state and receiving treatment as well as getting therapy at the ACI Learning Center in Edmond.

The point Brown was making was that autistic children like Savannah respond to therapy and that more can be done for them in Oklahoma.

“She is one of hundreds of children in Oklahoma receiving some kind of help, while others aren’t,” Brown said, adding, “And the argument that (Nick’s Law) will drive insurance companies out of state is false on its face.”

“Let the people of Oklahoma decide if they want to take care of these children now” or later, Brown said. “There is wide support (of Nick’s Law).”

Discussing this change of legislative venue with Red Dirt Report was Wayne Rohde, the father of Nick Rohde, the autistic boy who inspired “Nick’s Law” a few years ago, and has since moved his family from Oklahoma to Minnesota so Nick could get the treatment he needed when Nick’s Law failed to get legislative support.

“People are disappointed,” Rohde said, joking over the phone that he was “stuck in a snowbank” up in the Twin Cities, where he now lives. “ I planned to be there. I wanted (Nick) to come up to the Capitol. Of course everybody remembers what happened last year.”

Rohde was speaking of the decision in 2009 by the House Economic Development Committee to torpedo any chance that the House would get to vote on Nick’s Law. It was a bitter defeat for families who have children battling autism and were seeking coverage.

And now, with House Speaker Kris Steele (R-Shawnee) inexplicably announcing that HB 1624 was being reassigned to the Rules committee, Rohde and others who support Nick’s Law are concerned that HB 1624 will die in the Rules committee.

“(Rules) is traditionally the graveyard,” Rohde said.

An attempt to reach Steele for comment on Wednesday was unsuccessful.

Even though Rohde is hundreds of miles away, he has been keeping in touch with Rep. Brown and friends with autistic children.

Rohde conceded that there is precedent that a State Question should go to Rules, but switching committees “this late in the game,” he noted, proves “They’re not interested in dealing with it.”

“Basically you run out of time,” Rohde said.

Twenty-one other states have passed similar bills into law and as noted in a recent Edmond Sun article, a poll taken in 2010 for SoonerPoll revealed that nearly 80 percent of Oklahomans favored Nick’s Law.

As reported at Oklahoma Watchdog last August, Rohde told that news website that when these Nick’s Law-styled legislation has passed in other states, “free-market health care” kicks in and “..takes over because insurance companies go out and find qualified therapists and set their own rates.”

Rohde was also quoted at Oklahoma Watchdog as saying, “Most of these states see insurance coverage for autism and other special needs conditions as a fiscally conservative approach to health care, a true pro-life position, and the morally responsible thing to do.”

And now, Rohde and other supporters of Nick’s Law are simply hoping to speak their mind and in a committee setting it’s often difficult to do.

“This is a complex issue and we need to have some adult conversations,” Rohde said. “But we’re not able to have them. It’s disappointing.”

Rohde noted how many of the states bordering Oklahoma have already passed Nick’s Law-styled legislation, with Arkansas “getting close to passing it.”

But with no one able to figure out what is motivating Speaker Steele, considering he is not returning calls to Rep. Brown or other interested parties we have learned, one can only speculate what will ultimately happen.

What Rohde does know is that if these kids – who will soon be adults – don’t get the help they need, many could end up homeless or “clogging the jails” and affecting taxpayers in the long term.

But right now there doesn’t appear to be the political will let the people decide if Nick’s Law should become law. Additionally, Rohde suspects that Speaker Steele may be holding off dealing with the autism-and-insurance issue until he is out of his current leadership position.

“I think Speaker Steele doesn’t want to address it until he terms out,” Rohde said.

Copyright 2011 West Marie Media