Ann Breznai offers a followup to a post on autism costs in Michigan:
There are a couple of points I would like to deal with, one needs some additional information or it is very misleading and the other simply draws an incorrect conclusion after leaving out the bulk of the story.
First, you included the statement from Blue Cross stating "it's not that Blue Cross didn't want to cover the costs for autism treatment; in fact it offers an option to employers to buy coverage." That is not exactly true. They have just recently, very recently, added a rider option. However, it was not available at the time that those involved in the lawsuits sought treatment for their children. The truth is that BCBS announced that they were "going to start offering" (though, it was not available, yet, and there was no date for when it would be offered or how much it would cost) the rider option the same day they settled that first lawsuit, the John's case. Coincidence? Or an attempt to garner some positive press? Please, keep in mind that, at the same time the lawsuit was coming to settlement (because BCBS had internal documents stating that ABA therapy was "highly effective" and "scientifically proven" when they had denied the claims saying the treatment was "experimental"), autism insurance legislation was passing the House with overwhelming, bi-partisan support. As to the ryder itself, it covers children age 2 - 5 yrs. only, when the average age of diagnosis in MI is 5.7 yrs. It is also good at only one hospital, Beaumont, and for only one program, the HOPE program. Beaumont offers several other autism treatment programs, but the ryder covers only the one. It is a very short, 12 week program that trains the parents to be the 'therapist'. For families that need two incomes, live 5 - 7 hours from the hospital, are single parents, don't have someone to care for their other children, etc., this program isn't an option even if they have the rider and their child is the right age. The Beaumont program essentially requires a family to live at the hospital for the 12 weeks, it's a very intensive program. The rider is also only offered to large group companies who also include mental health coverage. So, it is a very restricted group of people that can even purchase the rider. Those who work for small - medium size companies, must purchase individual coverage or even work for large companies who don't happen to offer mental health coverage can't buy it regardless of how much they might be willing to pay. I, honestly, don't know of a single person who has this coverage. I'm sure it must be prohibitively expensive because it is such a small market that even has the option to purchase it. To state that employers have the option to buy autism coverage is extremely misleading, most companies are not actually eligible to buy the rider.
Finally, you make a statement - a conclusion, really - regarding the Free Press article that came out on Sunday. It is my son you are referring to in your conclusion that "at the end, the report tells of one child who made striking progress and it ends with an apt summary." The point of the article was about how expensive it is for families dealing with autism, the title of the article is "The Cost of Autism". The point of including my son was that we have had to rely on free and low-cost programs to deal with sensory issues, where he has made striking progress in some areas, though he still has several sensory issues left to deal with. Without insurance coverage, that is all we can afford. However, when it comes to his speech issues, we have been forced to rely on the school system. In this area, our son has made almost no progress. In a few areas, he has even lost ground. To state so simply that he has made striking progress is somewhat misleading, also. In one area, yes, he has. However, that isn't the complete picture. When our diagnosis was denied by BCBS, our savings was completely depleted. The combination of my loss of income and our son needing such a variety of piece-meal services in an attempt to deal with sensory and social issues, we have also burned through my retirement. The point of my son's story was the cobbling together of unorthodox services to do the best we can do, instead of being able to get the actual services prescribed by the doctors. The way you combined the statement about a "child who made striking progress" with Ms. Lemerand's statement actually makes it sound like she is saying that it doesn't surprise her to hear that kids are making striking progress, rather than her intended statement that it doesn't surprise her to hear of parents cobbling together and making do without the services they actually need for their children and/or giving up all their savings, college money for siblings and knowing they will never be able to retire in order to get services. It just seems slightly misleading to report on an article that is about the cost of autism, but not to have anything in your report about those costs.
