Autism coverage redux

Disappointment doesn't even begin to describe the dashed hopes of families who had hoped earlier this year — for the second year in a row — that Oklahoma might join several other states in mandating insurance coverage for treatment of autistic children. House Bill 1312, "Nick's Law," was defeated in a House committee.

Sen. Jay Paul Gumm, D-Durant, said of the panel's members: "They tore the Band-Aid off now quickly because they think they won't have to endure the public scrutiny for the next two years. I think that's a serious miscalculation on their part. These families aren't going away. These kids aren't going away."

To read the entire Tulsa World article, click here.

Gumm is back with two bills for the coming session. One in every 150 children struggles with autism, the fastest-growing disability in the nation. Without early, aggressive treatment, autistic children will continue to rely on parents and when those parents die, they likely will become wards of the state, a costly proposition.

Nick's Law proposal returns for 3rd session

by M. Scott Carter
The Journal Record December 29, 2009

OKLAHOMA CITY –

For Wayne Rohde, the third time could be a charm.

But the odds are stacked against him.Just weeks before the Oklahoma Legislature is set to reconvene, Rohde said he and state Sen. J. Paul Gumm, a Democrat from Durant, would try, once again, to pass legislation that would require insurance companies to cover patients diagnosed with autism.

Twice before the pair spent months fighting for their proposal – Nick’s Law.
Twice before they were defeated.

But this time, Rohde said, could be different.

“This will be the third straight session that Senator Gumm will introduce the legislation,” Rohde said. “We’re hopeful and optimistic that the Legislature will take a look at it.”

Under Nick’s Law, private insurance companies would be required to cover medically necessary and clinically proven medical treatments for children who have been diagnosed with autism by a licensed health care professional. Self-insured and federal employers would be exempt from the law and small business owners, he said, may choose to opt out of coverage under Nick’s Law.

The original bill, Senate Bill 1, remains in legislative purgatory in the Oklahoma Senate.

“This is very fiscally conservative health care,” Rohde said.

Rohde’s opponents say otherwise.

In May of 2008, Chris Benge, speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives, said he was sympathetic to the plight of parents with autistic children, but had concerns about Gumm’s legislation. Benge would later play a major role in killing Gumm’s proposal.

“The burden they carry is great, their medical costs are high and they are desperate to find hope for their children,” he wrote in a letter to Gumm. “However, it must be a priority for policymakers to evaluate public policy on a comprehensive basis. We must weigh the implications of our policy decisions as to how they will affect all Oklahomans. While it is clear that Nick’s Law would benefit families with autistic children, we must determine with certainty the impact this mandate will have on access to health care for all Oklahomans.”

Mandates such as Nick’s Law, he said, drive up insurance costs.
“There is substantial, reliable data that shows mandates do in fact drive up insurance premium costs and in turn force people to drop insurance because it is no longer affordable,” Benge wrote. “Contrary to the popularly held opinion, mandates have little effect on insurance companies because they simply pass their increased costs on to the consumer.”

Later, the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, a conservative think tank, distributed flyers that praised state Rep. Ron Peters, a Broken Arrow Republican lawmaker who prevented a legislative hearing on Nick’s Law.

Peters, the OCPA said, was simply defending free enterprise.

Still, Gumm and Rohde said they would continue the push for an autism mandate.

This year, in addition to Senate Bill 1, Gumm said he filed Senate Bill 1316, which would include autism coverage in the state’s high-risk insurance pool.
“If you go back and look at the history of why the high-risk pool was created, you’ll see that it was created for people who couldn’t get insurance coverage anywhere else,” he said. “If that doesn’t sound like something that is tailor-made for families like those with children suffering from autism, then I don’t know what is.”

Rohde said Nick’s Law would prevent insurance companies from shifting their insurance costs onto the backs of taxpayers.

“The companies are taking advantage of a monopoly situation and shedding the risk off on taxpayers,” he said. “By changing the law, you allow people, parents who are currently purchasing insurance, to have coverage under a health insurance plan instead of seeking out taxpayer-funded services.”

It’s the same type of law, he said, that has been adopted in several surrounding states, including Texas and Louisiana.
“
There’s a lot of opposition here,” Rohde said. “There are some in the state Legislature which say they don’t want government to tell a private industry what to do. But those same people voted for tort reform, which is telling a private industry what to do. So there’s quite a bit of hypocrisy there.”

If lawmakers don’t take advantage of the third attempt to pass Nick’s Law, he said, they will eventually pay high costs because those families will seek taxpayer-funded services.

“The long-term approach is this: If we don’t address the needs of these children at an early age, the taxpayers will be providing long-term medical care for these children – who will become adults – for the remainder of their lives.”

Wash DC officials propose autism insurance requirements

The Associated Press
2009-11-15

WASHINGTON -
Two D.C. Council members are planning to introduce legislation this week that would require insurance companies to improve coverage for children with autism.

Tommy Wells and Muriel Bowser plan to announce details of the legislation Monday and introduce their bill Tuesday.

If the bill passes, the District of Columbia would join a growing number of states that have passed autism insurance requirements.

Many insurers don't cover treatment for autism. Behavior therapy for an autistic child can cost up to $50,000 a year.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.examiner.com/a-232186~DC_officials_propose_autism_insurance_requirements.html

OF RED HERRINGS AND PINK ELEPHANTS

Posted on OCTOBER 14, 2009:
www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A28245

OF RED HERRINGS AND PINK ELEPHANTS
Hoping against HOPE, state GOP sit quiet on insurance coverage for autistic
children

By Arnold Hamilton

The Chicken Littles were out in force recently at the state Capitol. One
after another, they traipsed before a House committee to warn of cataclysmic
consequences if voters approve SQ 744, the Oklahoma Education
Association-sponsored initiative that would require lawmakers to fund public
schools at the regional average.

It was a made-for-TV drama, which was produced and directed by Republican
legislative leaders who -- for the most part -- despise the OEA, the state's
largest teachers' union and the driving force behind the collection of
240,000 voter signatures that ensured the initiative appears on next year's
general election ballot.

Lawmakers didn't need to have staged two days of sky-is-falling hearings.
They already knew the abysmal revenue and budget numbers and the potential
impact of SQ 744. The truth is: They summoned agencies from across state
government to wail publicly about possible layoffs and service cuts as a
preemptive strike against the initiative, fearing its passage will
strengthen and embolden the OEA.

Actually, the legislative leadership's focus on SQ 744, also known as the
HOPE -- Helping Oklahoma Public Education -- initiative, is quite revealing.
Their No. 1 priority: Amassing and maintaining political power.

If it weren't so, they would be staging public hearings, and engaging in
vigorous public debate, on an issue that threatens to dwarf the $850 million
they claim the HOPE initiative would cost the state.

The pink elephant under the Capitol dome? Autism.

For more than three years, parents of children with autism have lobbied
state lawmakers -- unsuccessfully -- to require insurance companies to cover
treatment. Insurers, and their legislative allies, insist the costs would be
back-breaking. Meanwhile, families across Oklahoma are going bankrupt as
they scrape together every last penny for treatment that gives their
autistic children a fighting chance at a productive adulthood.

How does this impact the state budget?

In Oklahoma, about 500 children are diagnosed with autism each year.
Eventually, they will become adults, many eligible at age 18 for government
aid ranging from Social Security-related benefits to Medicaid. Their life
expectancy is the same as those without autism, and recent studies indicate
it costs about $3.25 million to care for autistic adults, not including
housing.

Federal and state governments will share the burden, but it's not difficult
to imagine -- given that 1 in 100 children are now being diagnosed with the
disease -- that autism could end up costing Oklahoma taxpayers in excess of
$1.5 billion a year or about one-fourth of the entire state budget.

Eighty percent of the Oklahoma children already diagnosed with autism are
younger than 16, meaning a perfect storm could be brewing: The oldest will
be reaching adulthood at about the same time as Baby Boomers begin tapping
Social Security and government health care programs.

"The first big wave is coming at us," said Edmond's Wayne Rohde, whose
11-year-old son Nick suffers from autism.

This is classic cost-shifting. Insurance companies calculate it's less
expensive to pour thousands of dollars into the campaign accounts of
sympathetic lawmakers -- those who will oppose any new coverage mandates --
than it is to cover autism, even though they'd probably just raise premiums
to protect the bottom line anyway. Moreover, why would an insurance company
willingly provide coverage for anything when the taxpayers are eventually on
the hook?

It won't make any difference to the current crop of legislative leaders who
are all-too-happy to do Big Insurance's bidding. They're going to be long
gone -- thanks to term limits -- by the time the autism tsunami hits the
state budget. It'll be somebody else's problem.

This is a serious public policy matter -- Oklahoma's version of the health
insurance reform debate in Washington. The Legislature hasn't approved an
insurance mandate since Republicans took control of the House of
Representatives in 2004. The last mandate? Insurers were required to cover
annual mammograms for women.

The conventional wisdom is that efforts to force insurance companies to
cover autism are a strictly partisan dispute: Democrats support the mandate,
Republicans oppose it. The reality is different: The GOP leadership is
hooked on campaign contributions from the insurance industry, and it uses
the money as a hammer to keep legislative Republicans in lock-step on the
issue.

It's clear, however, that GOP leaders are less-than-confident what would
happen if the measure reached the floor of either house for a straight
up-or-down vote. They're not taking any chances. In fact, House Republicans
this year killed the measure in committee where fewer votes needed to be
controlled to ensure the outcome.

Whether the mandate can be revived next year depends in part on the
parliamentary kills of minority Democrats. More importantly, it depends on
the willingness of enough Republicans to recognize that sound public policy.
It will cost much less to invest in childhood treatment than it will to, in
effect, warehouse thousands of autistic adults.

Fifteen states already have recognized the wisdom of this strategy. They
know there is scant evidence that mandating insurance coverage for autistic
children will significantly increase premiums or the number of uninsured.
What it does is protect families from bankruptcy and taxpayers from an
unnecessary burden.

And it ensures that thousands of lives won't be wasted: According to
studies, half the children that receive early, aggressive and consistent
intervention have most of their symptoms erased by grade school age.
Further, many won't end up needing to be placed in special education
classes.

Pay now or pay later.

-- Arnold Hamilton is editor of The Oklahoma Observer www.okobserver.net

Nick's Law - Health insurance coverage battle continues in Legislature

Health insurance coverage battle continues in Legislature
by Jay Paul Gumm

DURANT — Hello again, everybody! Some battles at the State Capitol are over quickly; others continue, waiting on political leadership to catch up with public opinion.

The struggle to provide health insurance coverage to children with autism is one of those battles that will continue. Finding a way to help these children and their families is one of the issues to which I have devoted much effort.

For me, this struggle is a moral issue. My continued work on this is borne from my commitment to strengthen families and help ensure that every Oklahoma child has a chance to reach their God-given potential.

We are still waiting on the political leadership to catch up with public opinion. On the second night of last year’s legislative session, leaders in the House of Representatives killed the bill known as “Nick’s Law.” After that family-unfriendly vote, the leader of that committee proudly stood before the television cameras and said “Nick’s Law” was dead for two years.

Their hope was that the bill, and those families who support it, would simply go away. There have been few political miscalculations as off-base as was that one. Those of us committed to families continued the struggle throughout the session. We won a few battles in the Senate, but House leaders continued to turn their back on these families and their precious children.

Now, almost five months after the legislative session ended, those of us carrying this banner got another boost. Despite the reluctance of some legislators to acknowledge the importance of this issue, the nonpartisan Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy (OICA) has once again put autism insurance on its list of legislative priorities.

This group, which always has been a strong voice for Oklahoma’s children, made the decision during its fall legislative forum. At that two-day event, child advocates gathered from across the state to determine what OICA’s focus should be in 2010.

Republican and Democratic legislators addressed different panels on a host of issues. The child advocates were from every corner of the state and members of both political parties. This was as nonpartisan as you could get.

When the only question was “What is best for the children?” the answer was clear. Finding a way to help families pay for the expensive therapies necessary to give children with autism a chance at a full and happy life is – and should be – a top legislative priority for our state, regardless of partisan political considerations.

This is an issue both political parties have embraced in other states; in some states, the charge was led by Republicans. Oklahoma children deserve that same bipartisan support, and I will continue working to that end.

As always, if you have comments, questions or concerns about state government, send me a message through my website at www.gumm.us. You can also follow me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/jpgumm and on Twitter at twitter.com/jpgumm.

Thanks again for reading the “Senate Minute.” Have a great week, and may God bless you all.

Health Care Reform Abandons Developmentally Disabled Children

Sunday, September 13, 2009
By Terri Lynn Tersak

I’m a parent of an autistic child and Autism Advocate. We are often asked when we first noticed a problem with our son Xander (X). X got his first MMR along with his Varicella (chickenpox) vaccines on 09-20-2004. Two weeks later he was showing pronounced symptoms of Autism Spectrum Disorders.

It did take a while to get autism as the official diagnosis. But we started asking questions right away. The first roadblock was that the autism upsurge we are seeing began a year or two before X was born. We were told how badly the system was slammed, so they wouldn’t even begin the evaluation until he was three years old.

During our 18 month wait for assessment we started hearing word about the MMR and stopped his vaccinations. From that point, to this day, folks (like teachers of autistic children, social workers, etc.) have been telling us not to give autistic children the seasonal flu shots and to skip the second MMR too.

As much as I disagree with most of what the public is told about autism, I do understand what’s going on. Currently the autism prevalence figure widely promoted is, 1 in 150 children are autistic. There was an upsurge in the mid 1990’s and the vaccines or rather a mercury based preservative (Thiomersal) in the vacancies was blamed. But, the studies said it wasn’t to blame. Yet without any legal mandate the producers of vaccines stopped using Thiomersal in all vaccines except in the seasonal flu shots, which require it for some reason.

Now we have an even larger — try massive — upsurge in autism. Currently the CDC and NIH have the next/latest autism prevalence figure undergoing “peer reviews.” I’m all for thorough peer review and do admit I tend to ignore studies and figures that aren’t exhaustively vetted before release. However, many believe this review set is being dragged out for more than just political reasons.

The reform effort is all about “the numbers.” So I’ll cover some with you. The 1 in 150 prevalence figure is somewhat rounded up to an easy to say number. The accurate currently published autism prevalence figure is 6 in 1000. Thus 1 in 150 is actually too high. The new prevalence figure for autism is expected to be more than 12 in 1000, but is already being called 1 in 100. So the media is prepping to say something like “… Autism prevalence is up from 1 in 150 to 1 in 100, a 33% jump …” when the truth is, it will be more than a 100% increase (doubled) in 2 years!

This new prevalence number reflects the addition of the children that started school in the 2007-2008 through 2009-2010 school years, thus those born between 2003 and 2004. This massive upsurge comes from the children born those two years. Currently more children are annually diagnosed with Autism than are for AIDS, diabetes, and cancer combined. Once the new prevalence figure is released autistic children will represent at least 1.2% of all school age children.

See: “Introduction to Future of Autism Keynote Panel” for the first unofficial release of the new prevalence figure by the Autism Society of America.

Here are some of the raw numbers, by state.

State index

State Level Autism Insurance Reform Efforts

Although my personal focus has been on support for the autistic, all developmentally disabled (DD) are currently excluded from health care equity/parity under the current Federal Statutes. This leaves the states and private insurers able to deny coverage under both private and public health insurance plans.

The best reference for what is classified as DD is found in the World Health Organization’s, “International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision, Version for 2007″ (IDC), in Chapter V, Mental and behavioural disorders, Disorders of psychological development, Blocks F80-F89

All those listed in these blocks of the IDC that do not have an associated medical condition(s) or mental health classification(s) are currently at risk of total omission from the current health care reform bills. Inclusion of the full range of Developmental Disability classifications, along with the existing classifications of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, need to be addressed in advance of any health care reform legislative actions.

The shortest route to these ends would be an amendment to include DD in the Mental Health Parity and Addition Equity Act of 2008. However, the two authors of this Act are gone; Paul Wellstone was killed in an airplane crash and Pete Domenici retired due to health reasons. Finding sponsors who will enact legislation that will cost insurance companies a lot of money, arguably more than any one health inclusion has to date, has been a tough sell to say the least.

Early estimates say this latest upsurge in autism alone is going to cost between $300 Billion to upwards of $600 Billion – just for autism treatment – over the next ten years; above and beyond what we are being told Health Care reform will cost. This estimate does not include the cost of research to determine what caused this unexpected upsurge. Based on current costs of services, you can figure about $100K per autistic child, per year (for ball-parking numbers). How long they need treatment ranges from grades Pre-K through 6, up to lifetime support. The level of services needed range from $60K to $200K per child, per year depending on the degree of their affliction. So you can see that developing actuaries is going to be a daunting task.

Insiders say the real push for Health Care reform to happen now is being driven by various insurance and Pharmco entities so the laws, as written – that currently exclude parity/equity for autism – are passed and signed into law before the new prevalence figure goes “media public.”

Among the myriad of lies we are being told is that the current health care reform bills all include parity/equity for DD children, including autism. Not true. Review of the bills by legal scholars, coupled with a strong understanding of the complexities of our federal statutory construct tells the whole truth.

For example; H.R. 3200: America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. TITLE I–PROTECTIONS AND STANDARDS FOR QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS, Subtitle B–Standards Guaranteeing Access to Affordable Coverage, Sec. 114. Nondiscrimination in benefits; parity in mental health and substance abuse disorder benefits.

(a) Nondiscrimination in Benefits- A qualified health benefits plan shall comply with standards established by the Commissioner to prohibit discrimination in health benefits or benefit structures for qualifying health benefits plans, building from sections 702 of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 2702 of the Public Health Service Act, and section 9802 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

(b) Parity in Mental Health and Substance Abuse Disorder Benefits- To the extent such provisions are not superceded by or inconsistent with subtitle C, the provisions of section 2705 (other than subsections (a)(1), (a)(2), and (c)) of section 2705 of the Public Health Service Act shall apply to a qualified health benefits plan, regardless of whether it is offered in the individual or group market, in the same manner as such provisions apply to health insurance coverage offered in the large group market.

Note how H.R. 3200 references existing statutes for inclusion of Mental Health and Substance Abuse related disorders. It does not create the language that defines what it is or is included. See the Mental Health Parity and Addition Equity Act of 2008 for some of the definitions and the statutes that act references and the statutes they reference to see what exactly is included for Mental Health and Substance Abuse related disorders, not H.R. 3200 or any of the other “Health Care Reform” bills.

Also note the words, “autism,” “autistic,” “ASD,” “DD,” or “developmental” are nowhere in any of the current health care reform bills. Then note there is no federal health insurance parity/equity statutes that cover autism specifically or the more general class of developmentally disabled.

Critical to the autistic and where the greatest level of health care discrimination to them is what are called, “essential services” or “essential benefits”. Again let’s review H.R. 3200, SEC. 122. ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED. Nothing related to developmental disorders or disabilities, or autism specifically is included. Not a word or reference to existing statutes. Currently, countless parents of children with an autism diagnosis, diligently call private insurance providers and asked for premium quotes for a policy, for their child. Each and every company explained that they will not sell a policy for someone who has an autism diagnosis.

“This is just not right,” says Jeff Sell, The Autism Society of America’s Vice President of Advocacy and Public Policy. “Not only are these families being unfairly refused coverage for treatment of autism, but the companies are also refusing to sell coverage so these young people can see a doctor if they get strep throat, break a bone, develop a stomach ulcer, require intensive behavioral interventions or otherwise simply need access to prescribed medical care. In the future, with meaningful health-care reform, these families will be able to buy health coverage because insurance companies will no longer be able to exclude anyone just because that person has autism, or any other pre-existing condition.”

[Emphasis added]

Only if parity/equity for autism in health insurance that mandates autism be included in public and private insurances “essential coverage packages” exists in some federal statute before the health care reform is passed and that or those statutes are referenced by the health care reform act that is passed into law will the autistic realize, “meaningful health-care reform.”

So why the push to pass “something” now?

The motive is, of course, money. The cost of covering autistic children will either crush insurance companies’ profits or force them to raise premiums at least $100.00, per month, per policy if they have to cover autism to the same degree they cover medical and mental health conditions. That’s exactly why they don’t cover them presently and the insurance lobby has all but declared war on autism coverage. Currently, both private and public insurances can deny coverage to the autistic, including basic medical coverage, which the state of North Carolina attempted to do this year (attempted to drop coverage from Medicaid and CAP programs for autism and other DD patients). The insurance industry doesn’t want this to change and make no bones about that fact. Thus leaving only “the public option” — whatever that really means — to cover the mess no one wants to be completely honest about.

The insurance and Pharmco lobbies in DC are each so big the oil and labor lobbies look like underfunded amateurs in comparison. So if we are going to get “health care reform” — that is really Health Insurance reform in disguise — while Congress can’t get an already pissed-off public to buy into a public option (never mind having to tell the public that the current plan, as the bills are currently written, means autism will have to be covered by the public option) — some major omissions of facts and mutations of truth is going to have to be proffered as truth (and it certainly is) and the current effort will needs to be passed before the new autism prevalence figure and its associated costs become well known.

The plain fact is; we are being told that the “public option” will only cover “a small percentage of people.” True, but this is the most expansive example of constructive fraud (a lie by omission) in history. That small percentage of people are some of the most expensive to treat and are the fastest growing group needing health care insurance that are currently, largely uninsured. If insurance equity/parity for the autistic isn’t legislated, passed, signed into law, and codified before the health care reform becomes law, this small percentage of people will be the single most expensive part of health care reform. Moreover, they will be entirely on the shoulders of the taxpayers who played no role in what has happened to these children or their complete abandonment.

So our bought-and-paid-for-government needs to ram the health care reform down our throats before we find out how badly they are screwing us to protect the biggest of all special interest groups, insurance and Pharmco. But as long as they get this colossal swindle passed before the upsurge numbers go media-public, then technically they didn’t lie to us to get our support. Because there is only the old “official government stamped” prevalence figure for autism, they believe they can say they didn’t know the exact level in the upsurge of autism prevalence when the bill or bills were passed.

Are you getting the picture?

So our battle is on several fronts: Equity in insurance and in legislative actions overall for the autistic — and all DD patients — and demanding an objective investigation into just did this to our children are on the top of the list. The fact is, whatever did this wasn’t by natural or environmental changes. This upsurge was sudden and without warning. The service providers have yet to get staffed to eliminate waiting times for evaluation of two years or longer even after having years to plan.

For the record: Environmental changes don’t happen over night or cause widespread, abrupt disruption to the world’s gene pool – BS on that story. Except in cases of massive detectable exposure levels, naturally occurring or environmental exposures do not cause almost instant changes in a child’s entire developmental processes – BS again.

Somewhere, some group is responsible for a monumental error. One so huge no industry or even group of industries can afford to pay for this mistake. Likely, the responsible parties are powerful and influential enough to keep the truth hidden. It does appear the taxpayers are about to get stuck footing the bill for this colossal screw-up, under the guise of Health Care Reform and like the parents of the autistic – without any warning.

Any plan that does not include everyone is not, “Universal” or “Comprehensive,” these are just words being using to mask the truth. In closing, please recognize that if 1 in 150 or 1 in 100 children were being kidnapped or developed cancer — all of a sudden with no explanation -– a national emergency would be declared.

We have a national emergency and we, as a nation, are failing to respond.

This entry was posted on Sunday, September 13th, 2009 at 6:04 pm and is filed under Economics, Family, Health, OP/ED, Politics, Society, Vox Populi. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. | 393 views | Trackback | Print this page |

I am a wife, a mother of an autistic son and the retied President & C.E.O. of True Equality Network. I much prefer Mrs. to Ms. -- marriage is a good thing and needs all the advertising it can get. | More from Terri Lynn Tersak

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/13/health-care-reform-abandons-developmentally-disabled-children/

OK State Republicans can’t have it both ways on healthcare rationing

By Bailey Dabney, Publisher
CLAREMORE DAILY PROGRESS


September 8, 2009 September 08, 2009 12:23 pm

— The national healthcare debate goes on. Support for the plan with a government run public option is sparse and momentum for it’s passing never built.
That may prevent the passage of the largest healthcare overhaul America has ever seen.

The debate, however, rages on, and will likely continue until some type of compromise is met. There appears to be a consensus that changes are warranted. Scope and structure are at the heart of the disagreement.

‘Rationing’ is the most common fear of those who oppose the Congressional plans that have been proffered to date. It’s certainly not the only problematic by-product of a government run system, but it definitely resonates with scores of Americans.

Who could want healthcare rationing? Town Hall style meetings show standing-room-only crowds who oppose rationing.

Other countries with government run health systems are certainly rationing, which has brought many foreigners from countries who offer “free” care to America for appropriate treatment.

They seek better healthcare here and are willing to travel and pay for it.
Republicans and many Democrats across the country are diametrically opposed to the rationing of care.

Here’s the kicker. In Oklahoma: the most conservative state in the union, where Republicans control the House and the Senate, we already are rationing healthcare for the insured as well as the uninsured with Autism.

There’s no other way to describe it. There are medically necessary and clinically proven treatments and therapies that Doctors and Therapists prescribe that insurers refuse to cover. That’s exactly what rationing is.

Both Republican candidates for Governor, Mary Fallin and Randy Brogdon, have issued statements on their websites and in the media denouncing the rationing of healthcare.

Yet Oklahoma’s healthcare rationing has been sanctioned by the Republicans in the State legislature with their refusal to hear or pass Nick’s Law.

Nicks Law is a bill that is specifically designed to stop Oklahoma insurance companies from rationing healthcare to children and adults with autism.

It would require the insurance companies to cover therapies proven effective in the recovery and improvement of autistic children.

Speaker Pro Tempore Kris Steele, Speaker Chris Benge, Sen. Glen Coffee, et al have one leg on the dock and the other in boat.

Their tacit approval of rationing healthcare to children suffering with a debilitating illness in Oklahoma flies directly in the face of the Grand Old Party’s best and most prolific argument against nationalized healthcare.

It is the height of hypocrisy for state Republicans to oppose rationing care when it comes from a Democrat in the White House yet argue for rationing when it comes before them in the Oklahoma House of Representatives or Senate.

I look forward to Senator Brogdon exercising his newfound distaste for healthcare rationing when the next legislation session begins.

While our current healthcare system needs some re-engineering to close some small gaps, the Democrat sponsored bills for a government run health system have far too many flaws to be reasonable solutions to our healthcare woes.

Those who represent us in Oklahoma City, and those who wish to, should square their actions with their beliefs. Stop rationing healthcare in Oklahoma. Make sure the insurance industry fulfills its obligations to their paying customers in Oklahoma.

Perhaps if the states took better care of this problem, our federal government would get back to doing the things the founding fathers envisioned.


Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.