I tip my hat to Mr Hall and his rose colored look at the issue of funding autism treatments and therapies. The Ohio program on the surface looks wonderful. Yet when you peel back the covers of this program, you will find a different story. Question to Mr. Hall. Why are not all parents of autistic children eligble for this program and why many parents simply do not want to be a part of this program? The other issue is why is Ohio agressively seeking an insurance mandate similar to Nick's Law?Also, this program will do nothing to resolve the delivery of service problems in OK and along with address the acute shortage of practitioners in this state. Nick's Law would address those issues, but this program would not.Mr. Hall and others that want to protect the insurance lobby, keep stating without any facts, that this mandate will drive up costs and lead to greater numbers of uninsured. One word - PROVE IT. Do not quote theory from some think tank. I can show that from other state's insurance commissioners offices, that this type of mandate has not had any significant increases in the cost of insurance nor lead to any increases in the # of uninsured.However, the scholarship program can be a part of the total solution for Oklahoma. Nick's Law is a must and will be the cornerstone for systemic change in the way we provide care for our autistic children and adults.
This blog, dedicated as it is to the issue of school choice, takes no position on insurance mandates. But it is encouraging to see the chief promoter of Nick's Law say that a school-choice program for autistic children "can be a part of the total solution for Oklahoma." And indeed, if Mr. Rohde is correct that Ohio's program is not expansive enough, then Oklahoma policy-makers should make sure that Oklahoma's scholarship program exceeds Ohio's in terms of eligibility and funding.
Post a Comment