[FEAT BC Admin]

In this topic area, discussion is about the fight to secure Government funding for your A.B.A. treatment program. It is also the place to talk about your thoughts and ideas about how to establish new Government programs specifically designed for autism treatment.

This is the place to hear input from parents who have fought for funding and won, as well as those who have fought for funding and would like to share their horror stories. There is a tendency to not share success stories once funding is secured. Please fight that tendency. By sharing our experience, we all become stronger.

 

---

—-By FEAT BC (Freeman) on Saturday, January 3, 1998 – 03:16 pm:

-Hi everyone!

These are some things to think about in your dealings with government to help you to obtain support for your child’s Autism Treatment Program. These are my personal opinions and do not represent those of FEAT of BC or any other organization.

Many of these observations are based on my personal experiences (and I believe it poetic justice to help every parent avoid being systematically abused by their social worker the way I was).

Good luck to everyone! (Let’s all pull back the curtain on the Wizard of OZ).

Sabrina

 

---

How To Fight for Funding for Autism Treatment and Appropriate School Placement

1. Establish a Paper Trail

Always take notes, documenting major points of all conversations with government and school officials.

This includes casual, in person conversations with social workers as well as ALL telephone conversations. All key points of discussion must be written down in your notes including the date and time of the discussion. This includes what was agreed upon, as well as what was not agreed upon.

Then the notes should be used to write a letter recapping the substance and content of the conversation. This letter must then be mailed or faxed to the person with whom you had the conversation. In addition, a copy must be kept in your file (see section on the icci game).

Why?

It is important to formalize the interaction between you and Government officials. In addition, everyone is put on notice that they must closely adhere to their responsibilities, regulations and laws., Furthermore, they must then consider the paper trail you have created. This lets everyone know that the interaction can become public and that any abuses of power and authority can be formally appealed and/or publicized.

In other words, they canit use discretion unfairly under the cloak of secrecy.

2. Submit all Requests in Writing

All your requests for your child must be submitted formally in writing with a copy included in your file and a copy, if necessary, sent to their immediate superiors.

3. Set Deadlines for Action

All formal requests for action must have a reasonable deadline set for that action. If no action or response is received by the deadline you have set (two weeks for example), then you will interpret the lack of response as a formal declination (a formal NO) of your requests.

Why Set Deadlines?

When bureaucrats do not want to do something, they will stall by ignoring you and your request. (As an aside, in the study of the bureaucracy, this is known as ithe power to do nothingi). They can string you along for years. When you have determined that the person you are interacting with is not inclined to help you or is not dealing in good faith, then you must take the initiative and formally label his/her behavior as obstructionist and de facto as a declination (a NO to your requests). This allows you to move to the next level of authority on your timetable to present your case. This takes the power to do nothing away from the bureaucrat with whom you are dealing. Simple stated, a bureaucrat who stalls and does nothing becomes irrelevant (use your invisible spray) and you move on to the next level of authority.

How to icci?

A cc. is a copy of your letter sent to someone other than the person you are writing. You put the cc. at the bottom left-hand corner of your letter followed by 2 spaces and the name of the person or people to whom you want to send a copy of the letter.

Who to icci to?

Sometimes it is best not to icci at all, especially in the early stages of the relationship (for example, your first letter to a social worker requesting assistance). This gives them the opportunity to do the right thing and does not present you as an overly combative person. When you start to run into problems, it is a good idea to send the icci to the 2 immediate superiors of the person you are having problems with. We do not recommend icciing all the way up the chain of command, since you want to give them a chance to solve the problem at the local level.

Why send a icci copy?

The reason for playing the icci game is that you want your interactions with the official to be known to his superior and possibly to other organizations so that 1) their action or inaction becomes a matter of record and 2) the individual knows he is being monitored. This helps minimize abuses of power and authority and helps encourage the official to meet their obligations and do the right thing.

What is the sequence of letters?

Find out the chain of command of the particular bureaucracy you are battling.

TOP

Minister
Deputy Minister
Children’s Ministry’s local region chain of command, all the way down to the District Supervisor
and Social Worker
Contacts can be found at the government directory: http://www.dir.gov.bc.ca/

BOTTOM

Start at the bottom and climb. At the Regional Operating Officer (ROO) level (once you have been declined) you have to decide whether to jump up to the top, threaten and then go to the media, or both. A word of wisdom: DO NOT BLUFF. If you are not willing to go all the way, they will ‘smell’ this. You must be prepared to take it right up to the Minister and beyond.

Documentation from Experts:

In your arsenal to fight for your child, it is wise to get his/her pediatrician and/or psychiatrist to write a letter on your childis behalf. In addition, any other experts who know your child and are sympathetic to what you are trying to do should become involved.

When to hire a lawyer?

If money is not an issue, you can hire a lawyer when you get to the area manager level. Make sure that you have a paper trail so the lawyer has something to work with. Also, have the lawyer give F.E.A.T. of B.C. a call, and we will send him/her information that will help.

If money is an issue (as it is for most of us running autism treatment programs), you might want to hire a lawyer once you have been turned down by the Minister.

How to hire a lawyer?

The type of lawyer needed is a litigator, or trial lawyer. S/he does not need to be an expert in autism, or special needs; s/he needs to be experienced in suing governments, and enjoys being in court. Word of mouth is a good way to find a lawyer.

Topic

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Well, well. Today the federal government’s advisory council on pharmacare issued a report.  The report is available here:

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/about-health-canada/public-engagement/external-advisory-bodies/implementation-national-pharmacare/final-report.html#summ

What does the report recommend?

“That’s why we are recommending the federal government work with provincial and territorial governments and stakeholders to establish universal, single-payer, public pharmacare in Canada.

We propose that the government enact national pharmacare through new legislation embodying the five fundamental principles in the Canada Health Act:

• Universal: all residents of Canada should have equal access to a national pharmacare system;
• Comprehensive: pharmacare should provide a broad range of safe, effective, evidence-based treatments;
• Accessible: access to prescription drugs should be based on medical need, not ability to pay;
• Portable: pharmacare benefits should be portable across provinces and territories when people travel or move; and
• Public: a national pharmacare system should be both publicly funded and administered.”

I wonder how many MPs will oppose this on the basis that “it’s provincial”?

On a related note, the Hansard of yesterday (June 11, 2019) had an interesting reference to another health “strategy”:

“Lung Cancer Screening Strategy

<b>Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, Lib.): </b>

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Canadian Cancer Survivor Network held a working breakfast to share concerns and ideas for cancer victims with MPs and senators. As a double cancer survivor myself, I truly appreciate their efforts. Led by President Jackie Manthorne, the network ensures that patients and survivors obtain current knowledge about cancer treatment, options and outcomes. Dr. Paul Wheatley-Price, medical oncologist at the University of Ottawa, told us about exciting new treatments that are already having a significant impact on the chances for a successful recovery from lung cancer. Dr. Wheatley-Price emphasized that there is standardized early testing for breast cancer, colon cancer and skin cancer, but there is none for lung cancer. Dr. Wheatley-Price has asked parliamentarians to encourage the government to invest in a lung cancer screening strategy, and I think it is safe to say that parliamentarians will do just that.”

“Safe to say that parliamentarians will do just that”?  I sometimes get the impression that the federal government can do anything, especially in the realm of healthcare, but just not for autism.  Why is it that after years of asking for a National Autism Strategy one hears only silence.  With the federal election only months away and so many demonstrations in Ontario that have recently got so much attention, one might reasonably assume that the federal parties would be tripping over each other to be the first to announce a strategy, or one that was bigger and better than the other guy’s.  But no.  Autism got $20 in the 2018 budget for the creation of a website and some anti-stigma campaigns.   Almost year and a half later, I still can’t find the website.

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Well, even though the NDP credits itself with being the party that introduced Medicare in Canada, one has to sometimes wonder to what extent is the party still committed to it.  I say that because the Ontario NDP just issued a report about autism, and the issues that were raised by parents at a number of “roundtable” consultation sessions.  As context, keep in mind that the Ontario Conservatives are the government party and they have so badly mismanaged the autism file over the past few months that they conducted public consultations and just appointed an advisory panel to advise them with respect to next steps.  Well, the NDP is the opposition and saw a political opportunity.  So the NDP conducted some consultations and now issued a report. It is available here:

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ondpcaucus15/pages/1085/attachments/original/1559660038/19-05-AutismWhatWeHeard-Report.pdf?1559660038

It is a short report of only eight pages. It lists a number of themes and then concludes with the recommendation that the government should appoint a “non-partisan Select Committee” to review recommendations, etc.  Real action there.  However, what really struck me was that at the very end of the discussion of themes and right before the conclusion, there was one sentence that stood out like a sore thumb:

“Many families als0 wondered why autism services are not provided for under OHIP, and called for therapy to be covered.”

OHIP stands for the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (Medicare).  Is it not amazing that the NDP would leave such a sentence to the very end, practically like a footnote, and leave it dangling there without any commentary or statement of endorsement as a matter of principle?  However, if the issues reflected in the report do in fact accurately reflect what the autism community told the NDP note-takers, then it would appear that Medicare coverage is not a priority for the community. What a shame that the NDP does not raise this issue and make it a priority as their party’s legacy would presumably dictate. Ah…the times they are a changin’.

 

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Every one in our autism community knows that parents of children with autism have to endure some challenges and stresses on a regular basis (including daily) which can sometimes be simply too much.  People react to stress in different ways and some people, when they’ve lost hope and have gone past the tipping point, sometimes resort to desperate and regrettable behaviour.  The saddest and most shocking of course is when parents simply decide that life is no longer possible or worth living.  Since my son was diagnosed, I have noted several media stories of desperate parents who killed their child and others where they killed their child and committed suicide.  However, the media now has another upsetting story about a parent who repeatedly harassed an Ontario politician and raised the specter of the politician’s death.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/i-think-you-should-pay-for-this-with-your-life-mother-of-autistic-child-pleads-guilty-to-harassing-threatening-mpp-lisa-macleod

 

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Well, this is interesting.  Now let’s look at the latest news from Nova Scotia.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/early-intervention-autism-program-wait-list-1.5162108

It seems there are “wait lists” for kids to get a diagnosis.  And then there is a “wait list” to get access to treatment.  According to the Executive Director of the Autism Society of Nova Scotia, the wait list for treatment is the longest she’s ever seen it.  She described the system of wait list upon wait lists as constituting a “bottleneck system”.

Yes, indeed.  And if the delay in accessing treatment was not disturbing enough, the article points out that the Nova Scotia system has an age six cut-off and therefore some kids are getting “dangerously close” to missing the treatment window.

The same person also happens apparently to be a Chair of the Board of Directors of CASDA and was the leading CASDA press conference spokesperson when CASDA issued a National Autism Strategy “blueprint” last month.  And what did the CASDA blueprint say about “bottleneck systems” and how to fix them?  Not much, but in terms of accessing “supports”, the blueprint proposed reforming the Disability Tax Credit, ensuring consistent recognition of ASD costs for the Medical Expense Tax Credit, and enhancing the Child Care Expense Deduction (and more training).  It is not clear how tinkering with the tax system would solve the “bottleneck” crisis that has manifested itself in Nova Scotia.  Maybe that’s why the article does not mention the CASDA blueprint.

However, the article does say that today (Wednesday, June 5, 2019) the Nova Scotia government is set to announce something…”new resources being offered through Autism Nova Scotia”.  Hmm…

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Well, here’s an interesting model.  Yesterday an MP made a statement in the House that is worthy of note.

Hansard, Thursday, May 30, 2019.

“Multiple Sclerosis

Mr. David Yurdiga (Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC)<b>: </b>

Mr. Speaker, today I recognize World MS Day. World MS Day is a day of global advocacy in the fight against multiple sclerosis. It brings together the global MS community to share stories, raise awareness and campaign for everyone affected by multiple sclerosis. Multiple sclerosis is a disease that affects the lives of hundreds of thousands of Canadians. As many members know, my wife Kathy suffers from MS, and since her diagnosis, my family has been active in the fight against MS and other episodic disabilities. That is why I put forward my private member’s motion, M-192, to make life easier for people living with episodic disabilities. Today, I would like to thank the MS Society of Canada and especially Julie Kelndorfer for all of their hard work on my motion and in the fight against episodic disabilities. One day we will find a cure, but in the meantime, we need to band together and support all Canadians suffering from MS.”

So the MP has a family member with the disorder and he draws attention to his private member’s motion M-192.  Wow.  A public policy initiative and discussion?  And what does M-192 say?

“M-192

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities (episodic disabilities)

That the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities be instructed to provide recommendations for legislative and policy changes necessary to ensure that the needs of persons with episodic disabilities caused, among other things, by multiple sclerosis, be adequately protected to ensure equity in government policy to support Canadians across all types of disability; that the Committee report to the House by May 16, 2019; and that it be instructed to request a comprehensive government response to its report, pursuant to Standing Order 109.”

Holy smokes!  This is from a Conservative Party MP from northern Alberta?! Would Mike Lake and all his supporters please take note.  The MP did not “raise awareness” by talking about his love for his wife and how great she is. No. Instead, as a politician who was elected to do things, he tabled a Motion to refer a question to a Standing Committee with the task of making “legislative and policy changes” to help people with MS. A report has to be tabled with a request for a comprehensive response.  Good Lord!  Action!

So what happened to the Motion?  Well, apparently it was placed on notice on May 30, 2018, debated in the House on October 5 and November 2, 2018, and “agreed to” on November 2, 2018.

And then what?  Well, the HUMA committee held hearings and heard from witnesses, including the MP.  On March 22, 2019 it issued a report with 11 recommendations and formally requested a Government reply. I gather the Government has not yet replied.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/HUMA/Reports/RP10367115/humarp15/humarp15-e.pdf

The press release of March 22, 2019 is interesting.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/HUMA/news-release/10367245

Note this passage from the press release:

“The goal of MP Yurdiga’s private Members’ motion was to study how the needs of people with episodic disabilities are addressed in government policies that support people with disabilities more broadly and to recommend legislative and policy changes that will ensure that they have equitable access to relevant programs. The Committee’s report is based upon testimony provided by a variety of witnesses – including people living with episodic disabilities. The report presents new data on episodic disability and speaks clearly to the need to expand our understanding of disability to include episodic experiences. It also underscores the desire of people with episodic disabilities to remain active and productive in the labour force while recognizing that they need more support, including income support during periods when their disability prevents them from working. The report presents conclusions and the Committee’s recommendations to Employment and Social Development Canada, including recommendations to work together with other federal departments and agencies as well as other levels of government to address the challenges facing people with episodic disabilities.”

I wonder what it would be like if our community had a champion for our cause in the House of Commons who would take the initiative to put access to autism treatment on the agenda of the Standing Committee on Health.  Would a report from that committee recommending that the feds “…work together with other federal departments and agencies as well as other levels of government to address the challenges facing people with… [autism]” make any difference? Of course the Senate report of 2007 had no impact on the issue of access to treatment under Medicare, but my understanding is that the Standing Committees of the House of Commons have more influence on the Government.  For example, the Standing Committee on Health issued a report on the development of a National Pharmacare Program, and the most recent budget introduced some preliminary elements of it. I have written to many chairs of the the committee in the past requesting that autism be placed on their agenda, but was told they had other priorities.  Unfortunately, our community does not appear to have anyone in the House agitating for this. Shame.

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Well, the Ontario autism cyberspace community is lighting up with awareness about the government’s new autism advisory panel.  From what I’ve been able to figure out so far, it seems that the new panel will have access to information that the government collected so far during this month’s “consultations” (the public was invited to make submissions and participate in “town hall” telephone meetings, etc.).  However, it appears that it has now been revealed that the members were required to sign some sort of “confidentiality” or “non-disclosure” agreement.  Thus, it appears that the panel members are obligated to not share any information obtained during the meetings. Transparency?  Hmmm.

One parent tweeted surprise that the Executive Director (ED) of the Autism Society of Ontario (ASO) is a co-chair of the panel because, according to this parent, the ED has not reached out to the community since the initial government announcement in early February and has not been forthcoming about the organization’s relationship with the Minister. Wow.  Finally, somebody called a spade a spade.  I have always felt that the ED in question was a very poor representative of our community and that the claim that the ASO is the “voice of the autism community” was a huge misrepresentation since I never detected any sense of crisis or urgency from the ASO’s statements or support for the “Medicare for Autism Now” objective. In fact, although I joined the ASO following my son’s diagnosis, I did not renew my membership which expired after the first year.  It did not take me long to see that they were not a source of inspiration.

Not surprisingly, Mike Lake immediately rose to the occasion and came to the defence of his friend tweeting “<s>@</s><b>MSAutismOntario</b> never stops working on behalf of Ontarians with autism. She is absolutely professional, non-partisan and well-respected by almost everyone I know”.  Birds of a feather…it seems to me that everything he wrote is subjective and questionable, but one has to admire the thin streak of honesty reflected by the insertion of the word “almost”! One has to admit…never a dull moment in autism politics.

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Further to my previous post about the Ontario government’s appointment of a new autism “advisory panel”, the twitter world has been full of comments and interesting revelations about some of the members of the panel.

Just to put some things in context, how absurd would it have been if NASA’s team of scientists working on the Apollo moon project had a member who was the president of the “flat earth society”? Or how about a situation where the government put together a group of experts to advise on public health policies regarding infectious diseases and the group included the head of an anti-vaccination advocacy organization? Or how about an advisory group on national defence that included the president of the “Let’s Surrender Society”?  You get the picture.

So this new advisory panel has two folks on it that seem to be quite the anti-ABA activists.  One of them has quite a trail of interesting statements he’s put out in cyberspace, including: “I hope your children all die under Ford” and “BCBAs [board certified behavioural analyst] can eat shit and die”.  Sounds like he wishes death on our kids and those who can help them.

Meanwhile, one of the co-chairs has a familiar name….yes, she was the Minister at the time that my son was diagnosed way back when.  Well, some parent dug up a quote of hers: “The Premier should never have promised in writing during the 2003 election campaign to extend expensive intensive behaviour treatment to all autistic kids”.  One parent suggests it is clear why she and others were appointed.

Governments often resort to consultations and the use of these advisory panels as a means to generate legitimacy and public “buy in” to their subsequent decisions regarding programs and services.  However, if the government has set up an ABA treatment program for autism exactly 20 years ago and now has a track record to demonstrate its positive impact on the lives of those who have been in the program, why would they appoint anti-ABA activists to such an advisory panel if not to ensure discord and a guarantee that no recommendation from the panel will have unanimous support?  Of course democracy must recognize and respect diverse opinions on everything, but if the government is looking for sound advice on how to reform its program for the better and improve access to treatment for the kids who need it, then appointing anti-ABA activists to the panel is a prescription for sabotage and undermining the whole exercise.  A significant amount of time and energy spent by members will likely be used up dealing with what will likely be vigorous objections from the anti-ABA folks. So…is the government serious or not? The next little while will be interesting (and entertaining if it was not so tragic).

 

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Well, the Ontario government has now appointed an autism “advisory panel”. Their task is apparently to make recommendations on a “needs-based funding model”. The name reminds me of an Auditor General report complaining that in one employment funding program years ago the government actually sent money to companies that never applied for funding.  I suppose that is an example of the “no-needs funding model”.

https://news.ontario.ca/mcys/en/2019/05/ontario-announces-autism-advisory-panel.html

The members of the advisory committee are listed here:

https://news.ontario.ca/mcys/en/2019/05/members-of-the-ontario-autism-program-advisory-panel.html

One of the co-chairs is the head of the Autism Society of Ontario. She’s been around a long time, but I can’t recall her ever suggesting that the Department of Health and Medicare should be involved in the Ontario Autism Program.  I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think so.

It sounds like there is also at least one “self-advocate” on the panel.  Maybe that’s why the Minister suggested the panel members “be kind to each other”.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/be-kind-to-each-other-province-appoints-committee-to-begin-further-reforms-of-autism-program

A rocky start…..

 

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

Readers of this discussion board know that I often review the “Hansard” transcripts of the shenanigans in Parliament and occasionally find some interesting statements. However, every once in a while, one comes across passages where one is left wondering….”what?”  Yesterday’s House of Commons Hansard contains one such passage which is an exchange between Mike Lake and Marc Garneau. The context involved the House of Commons being on the verge of passing Bill C-81 (An Act to Ensure a Barrier-Free Canada).  Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport just finished speaking and saying a few words about accessibility in Canada.

Tuesday, May 29, 2019.

<b>”Hon. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC): </b>

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the hon. member knows, the bill will pass in about half an hour or less. After a couple more speeches, we will be at that point. It is a good day for Parliament. I have had the opportunity to serve with the member on the industry committee in a previous life, prior to the last election, and I enjoyed the non-partisan conversations we had at that time, just as I enjoyed his speech today. He rightfully gave commendation to the minister, recognizing the work she has done in sharing her life experience to help people who have had similar life experiences. I would also like to recognize our former minister of finance, who did the same thing for 10 years in the House, using his life experience to inform his policy decisions. This is questions and comments, and I am going to sit down and leave this as a comment, thanking the Minister of Accessibility for her work on this file and thanking the Minister of Transport, who just spoke, for his non-partisan speech. In the spirit of this day, as we work together to create a better world for Canadians living with disabilities, I will end my comments there.

<b>Hon. Marc Garneau: </b>

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comment. Indeed, he is right. We have had the opportunity to work together. In the old days before the last election, when I was the industry critic, I appreciated working with him and I appreciated his open-mindedness. We quite often agreed on a number of things, although not every time. I want to commend my colleague for the example he has shown in this Parliament every year by speaking about his son and about autism. I think he has played an enormously important role in sensitizing all of us in the House. I commend him for his work and for his positive comments today.”

Mike Lake “open-mindedness”?  With respect to what?  A federal role in getting autism treatment covered by Medicare?  Really?  When? Although Mike Lake always seems to speak about his son when the issue of autism comes up, what has he actually “sensitized” the MPs in the House of Commons to?  Are any of the MPs more aware today of the obstacles facing the autism community in terms of access to treatment under Medicare than they were before Mike Lake started making his one-minute-once-a-year statements about his family’s love of his son on “Autism Awareness Day” and his blowing kisses in the direction of the public gallery? In all his years in the House of Commons, has Mike Lake ever said “ABA treatment for autism should be covered by Medicare in Canada” even once?  So much opportunity…wasted.

If that exchange was not enough to make your stomach churn, Mike Lake retweeted a message of congratulations from someone for “And a special shout out to Mike Lake <s>@</s><b>MikeLakeMP</b> for his brief but great message! Good job Mike!”  But what was his message?  All he did was say that he recognizes the work of some MPs and enjoyed conversations and listening to their speeches.  Just as with Garneau’s response to Lake in the House, it is all a series of back-slapping and congratulations to MPs for doing their jobs (and less).  Great message?  Really?  Where?

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

So the Globe and Mail published an article about the costs of raising a child with autism.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/household-finances/article-how-much-does-it-cost-to-raise-a-child-with-autism/

The costs and economics of autism are obviously a key part of any discussion about appropriate public policy.  While some elements of the community have raised this issue a long time ago (e.g., a study done in support of the Auton case when it went to trial), many other elements of the community are silent on the matter. I don’t see much discussion of the numbers in the current Ontario autism fiasco.  And of course politicians only discuss today’s costs and ignore others.  This is one of the weaknesses of the political system’s inability to consider long-term issues that go beyond the next budget cycle or, at most, the next election.

While the cost to a family for raising a child with autism certainly needs to be known, it is only part of the whole picture which should be understood by decision-makers.  Another crucial set of figures to understand is the cost to the government of providing ABA autism treatment (as an investment) and the comparison of lifetime support costs for adults with autism who have had the benefit of early ABA treatment in their lives and those that did not (untreated).  Those figures should make the cost/benefit analysis and argument justifying the expenditures on treatment (through Medicare) a “no-brainer”.  Regrettably, this equation is not the subject of much, if any, public policy discussion that I see from any of the leading autism organizations.  This may be one reason why the autism community should seriously consider pooling some resources to hire some professional lobbyists who may be more familiar with this sort of thing and strategies to influence government (and turn on the light).

 

[Author]

Replies