[Monika Lange]

I met with Minister Reid in a room alone (big mistake) about 2 years ago. We had a huge argument about her statement to me then that "Lovaas is not ABA". She simply kept repeating "It's not the same thing" and "No it's not" and "Nu-huh". She wouldn't let it go until finally I tried to move to the next point – at which time she stood up and said she was out of time and walked out on me. I'm still confounded as to why she felt the two were different. But I did leave the meeting learning one thing: Linda Reid is one of the most hostile b*tches I have EVER met. I wondered afterward if she was proud of beating up a poor single mother who was just there to plead for help for her handicapped child. She had me in tears. Never meet with her without witnesses and a bodyguard.

[Monika Lange]

You're right on the money Jenn. I made this submission to government in 2001 regarding the cost/benefit analysis. It took me all of half an hour to get the numbers, and I got them by phoning government offices directly. Not one government officer/minister has disputed them, so I have to assume they're correct. For members of the Autism Society, please keep in mind I included that funding before it was the Society was of real service to us.

Oral Presentation to Select Standing Health Committee
By Monika Lange – On October 17, 2001 in Terrace, B.C.

My name is Monika Lange. I live in Kitimat and am the parent of two children; one is an 8 year old boy with autism. I am here to provide information on how existing government funding could be reallocated to provide effective autism treatment to every autistic child in B.C..

BACKGROUND

A highly effective treatment exists to treat autism. This treatment was pioneered and developed by Dr. Ivar Lovaas at the University of California. Lovaas treatment, officially termed “Applied Behavioural Analysis Treatment’ (or ABA) has been scientifically proven effective in treating young children with autism. 47% of children who begin this treatment before the age of four lose their diagnosis. Another 40 percent will pass their grades in school and function independently as adults. In other words, an 87% success rate. It should be noted at this point that ABA is the ONLY scientifically proven effective treatment. The current autism industry in BC is neither scientifically proven nor effective – it carries a rehabilitation success rate of about 2%, which is the same success rate experienced spontaneously without ANY intervention.

In spite of this, ABA treatment is not currently government funded and the NDP government steadfastly denied children treatment. In July 2000, parents of autistic children won a landmark court battle in Supreme Court against the government of the day. Justice Allan ruled the treatment to be “medically necessary” and further ruled that the government had discriminated against autistic children. Subsequently, the NDP government filed an appeal of this ruling, perpetuating the neglect and discrimination indefinitely.

However, despite the drag imposed by our former NDP government, parents had high hopes for our new Liberal government. Hopes were fueled by repeated assurances such as the following:

1. In a letter to me dated Oct. 18, 2000, Honourable Gordon Campbell states “The Official Opposition agrees that autism is a medical condition requiring medical intervention and that government has a responsibility to fund effective treatment.” And;

2. A letter to me from Honourable Colin Hansen, dated Nov. 1, 2000 states “We publicly called on the government to get on with funding autism treatment the day after the court decision was released and we have been vocal in our criticism of their decision to appeal. It is time for government to recognize that autism is a health issue and ensure that proper treatment is provided”. And;

3. Another letter to me from Honourable Campbell dated Dec. 15, 2000 includes a Hansard transcript on the autism treatment issue. In it, Honourable Reid is quoted, “I certainly hope there is something else funded other than the costs of the appeal, that there will be on the ground dollars for these families in the very near future. The bottom line is that these are enormous challenges and the government walks around it in terms of a pilot project or a reference to it. This is where the rubber hits the road in terms of a stated commitment that has some solid implementation to it. Is it a health issue? Most definitely.”

ANALYSIS

I will now explain what I know of the autism industry in B.C., and provide comment on how I see EXISTING funds could be reallocated to fund ABA treatment. You will probably note that most of the existing funds are channeled through the Ministry for Children and Families, not the Health Ministry. That is a bone of contention all in itself, one which is addressed in detail in a brief which is attached. Suffice it to say, MCF is a social services agency, and not equipped to carry out ‘medically necessary’ treatment.

I will set the tone for an overview of existing autism ‘services’ with a quote by Supreme Court Justice Allan on the issue, “It is ironic that the very limited treatment services provided by the government not only fail to meet the gold standard of scientific methodology; they are positively discredited by one of the government’s own expert witnesses.”

The first major existing organization is Gateway, the current provider of ‘behavioural support’ to parents. Gateway’s service is not scientifically proven and was one of the organizations specifically discredited by the Supreme Court as being ineffective. However, Gateway receives $4.2 million annually.

Secondly, the Provincial Resource Program is the school system arm of Gateway. (They renamed to PRP after being charged with 12 serious health and abuse violations.). PRP receives $1.8 million. The Laurel Group, a facility in the lower mainland open to a select few autistic children receives $1.2 million, and CBI, another organization (I’m not even sure what they do) receives half a million. The Autism Society of BC also receives $350,000.

Also, money currently spent on social services such as respite is not to be underestimated. From a personal perspective, the government currently spends more on my son’s respite care than it would for ABA treatment for him. Furthermore, ABA treatment is finite in duration; respite is not – parents of rehabilitated children do not need respite. And also consider the money allocated for supported daycare that is actually used by parents to pay ABA therapists. If you don’t believe me, I can show you how I did it.

Now, if you think those were big bucks, let’s talk about the government’s new ‘pilot project’, which is budgeted at $19.85 million. This pilot project was initiated by the NDP in an attempt to win some desperately needed brownie points in Supreme Court. I like to call it “Project Optics”.

For this $19.85 million, the province will provide only 12% of children under the age of 5 with 20 hours of intervention from unqualified people, and MOST of the money will go towards overhead costs for the 8 organizations contracted. This program fails on several counts: it does not provide bona fide effective treatment; it does not provide sufficient intensity of treatment, it is still not universally accessible as it still shuts out the majority of autistic children.

The sum of the above figures, in other words, the cost of the existing autism industry, totals $27.9 million annually.

Now for the good news. The number of children in BC who would be put into full blown ABA treatment programs if funding were accessible, is approximately 300. An ABA program costs between $40-60,000 a year, but for argument’s sake, I’ll say $60,000. 300 children multiplied by $60,000 is $18 million, or about $10 million LESS than the $27.9 million the current autism industry costs. The $18 million it would cost to fund ABA for 100% of our autistic children is also less than the cost of the pilot project which is budgeted at $19.85 million and will address only 12% of children under five.

In other words, in direct treatment costs alone, ABA treatment would be MUCH cheaper for the province, and 87% of children would be rehabilitated. The government would save money immediately AND in the long run. ESPECIALLY in the long term, as each unrehabilitated autistic adult costs the system millions for lifelong care.

In summary, every penny given to the existing autism industry is at the DIRECT expense of effective autism treatment. To use a medical analogy, currently funded ‘services’ are equivalent to giving your child ginseng to treat his leukemia. Unproven treatments shouldn’t be paid for by the government, which in turn then tells other cancer stricken patients “Sorry, there’s no money for your chemotherapy… we’re already spending so much to treat cancer already.”

A two tiered health care system has developed for autism treatment due to the absence of government involvement. Those with financial resources are putting effective autism treatment programs into place for their children. Those without the resources are now outside the health care system with grave consequences for their families and affected children. Just imagine if only the wealthy could treat their sick children with chemotherapy. That is EXACTLY parallel to what is happening with autism. Our new government has to take a good hard look at existing contracts with obsolete autism service providers, and then reallocate existing funding to treatment that is scientifically proven effective. I ask that you please carefully consider this submission and take radical but progressive steps to ensure the immediate provision of effective treatment for every autistic child in British Columbia.

Monika Lange (October 17, 2001)

[Monika Lange]

I got our story as the front page headline on my hometown newspaper (Kitimat Sentinel)- "Supreme Court decision engrages local mother". Regarding AG Plant, we absolutely have to cream him on his quoted responsibility to fund only "scientifically proven" treatment. What manipulative B.S. that he takes the phrase we've been throwing at him for at least a decade, then turns it around to imply ABA isn't proven. Lies Lies Lies.

[Monika Lange]

Good, I'm glad you approve of my plagiarism! I just remembered, I used your prostrate comment too. I did manage to come up with one original idea in my letter though, and that was, I wonder if Attorney General Geoff Plant is willing to deny children cleft plate surgeries because they are "costly". I qualified the statement by adding "My words are angry but I will continue to direct them at anyone, Government Minister or not, who sugggests my son is a second class citizen. Let the Attorney General take it just as personally as I and my child have for the last ten years."

[Monika Lange]

Message to Stephan Paperman,
I wrote a letter for my local newspaper in Kitimat today and I borrowed a couple of ideas from your post (eg, Sindi Hawkins, Fast Ferries). I also emailed the letter to the Sun but have no idea if it will get in there. I hope you don't mind. They made my letter more convincing. Just thought I should let you know, and thank you.

[Monika Lange]

Geoff Plant is damn lucky I believe in the afterlife. And if there is one, he should be worried. I've been sitting here for a long time trying to put my thoughts down, but I'm so incredibly angry that I can't even express it in words.

[Monika Lange]

Great job Andrew. Thanks for keeping this issue in the press. It’s good that those less like-minded are helping us to do the same. Those who write contrary articles give us the opportunity to further air our excellent case even more. All press is good, but I must say, yours has been super! Keep up the good work. I appreciate it.

[Monika Lange]

Re: Sunday School

Gently remind them of the words, "That which you do unto the least of these, that you do unto me."

[Monika Lange]

Re: Sunday School

Gently remind them of the words, "That which you do unto the least of these, that you do unto me."

[Monika Lange]

I’m really fed up with all this stuff I’ve heard over the years about “choices” in autism treatment. This term is a wolf dressed in sheep's clothing and new parents should be aware of that. There is no choice, because there is only one scientifically proven treatment. This B.S. line is perpetuated by those desperately trying to hold their head above the waters of obsolescence. If you choose to modify Lovaas ABA then you no longer have scientifically proven treatment. Furthermore, “choices in treatment” is a line I’ve had thrown in my face over the years by, without exception, so-called experts such as Gateway, POPARD, and Cabinet Minister Linda Reid. For instance, POPARD, during a school meeting about my son and in an attempt to make me look uninformed, told me sarcastically, “Oh, come on, there’s more than ONE treatment, and parents should have their choice.” To which I responded, “If that’s true, then why are you hassling me about mine”. Saying there are choices in autism treatment is inaccurate. If your neighbour wanted to treat his child’s leukemia with aromatherapy would you not have objections? Likewise, FEAT parents have strong feelings about what constitutes bona fide treatment (founded well on science), and they object to those who would pass off qualitatively inferior and unproven products off on our children and the rest of the children in the province. And make no mistake about it, autism treatment (whether you get the real thing or something passed off as it) is a ‘product’ and treatment is a money-making business. Keep this in the back of your mind when ‘choosing’.

[Author]

Posts