Current Conditions
23°F - CLEAR
Proponents become opponents on autism bill
Bird's-Eye View
Intelligencer Journal
Published: Jun 30, 2008
00:06 EST
By DAVE PIDGEON, Staff

Private insurance companies will continue denying coverage of autism treatments under a bill passed 49-1 by the state Senate on Sunday, opponents said prior to the vote.

The opponents originally stood as proponents of a mandate forcing private coverage, but the final version of the bill was so amended, they said, the proposed mandate would actually hurt families dealing with autism.

The original version — authored by state House Speaker Dennis O'Brien, who slammed the final Senate revisions prior to its passage Sunday — would have forced insurance companies to cover autism treatments up to $36,000, with the state's Medical Assistance program helping families with any costs above the cap.

A report commissioned by the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council said last week that the original mandate would end up costing all insurance customers about $1 per month.

The Senate Banking & Insurance Committee, however, amended the bill last week. According to O'Brien and others who once supported the bill, the revisions passed Sunday by the Senate allow insurance companies to decide for themselves what services to cover.

While the bill sets up a system to challenge any denial, disappointed former supporters said the bill now makes affording vital but expensive treatments prohibitive.

"When insurers deny coverage, families will have no alternative but to reach into their own pockets to pay for the medical treatment," Estelle Richman, a one-time supporter and secretary of the Department of Public Welfare, wrote in a letter Sunday to Republican Sen. Don White, a former insurance broker and chairman of the Banking & Insurance Committee. "This means they will be worse off. … "

O'Brien, who has placed much of his legacy as a legislator into getting this mandate passed, called the bill an "illusion" of insurance coverage for autistic children.

"That's because the current version gives the insurance companies a back-door way to continue denying coverage for autism services," he wrote in a statement. "Insurance companies will continue to second-guess these kids' doctors and refuse to pay for autism services. The Senate-amended version gives them the power to unilaterally deny that coverage. … "

Also rejecting the new bill were AutismLink and the Autism Center of Pittsburgh, but the national organization Autism Speaks announced its support of the current version as did Sen. Jane Orie, co-chair of the Autism Caucus.

"The bill now moving forward, if signed into law, would be the strongest autism insurance mandate yet achieved in the nation," said Elizabeth Emken, vice president of government relations for Autism Speaks.

Supporters also trumpet other amendments to the bill, including government oversight of a pending merger of two large Pennsylvania insurance companies — Highmark and Independence Blue Cross — and insurance coverage of colorectal cancer screenings.

I am Spartacus!

Or in this case, "We are Hussein!"

In an article from The New York Times, there's a growing movement in chatrooms, blogs and online social networks like Facebook by people who insert "Hussein" into their own names.

For example, I'd be "David George Hussein Pidgeon."

The practice is a reaction to Republican attacks against Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama, whose middle name is Hussein, one he inherited from his Kenyan father. Although Obama is a Christian, some sinister political attacks have been lobbed his way, suggesting the name means he's a Muslim or a terrorist.

The Times article says the practice isn't a widespread trend, but people appear tired (i.e. ticked off) about making much ado about a middle name. The last time any of us checked, the U.S. Constitution doesn't disqualify someone for their last name.

Quotes of the Week

"Do McCain's free-market, tax-cut ideas trump Obama's government-sponsored programs? Well, (free market policies) work in the good times, but in the bad times, since the New Deal, people look to the government for help."

— G. Terry Madonna, director of Franklin & Marshall College's Center for Politics & Public Affairs, about an F&M poll that showed 66 percent of registered voters nationally believe the government can solve their problems.

•••

"In the years past, it's reminded me of a situation where the parents are upstairs working on important issues, like paying the mortgage, while the kids are down in the rec room trying to stay occupied,"

— State Rep. Greg Vitali, a Delaware County Democrat, about the lack of floor movement on the state budget while legislative leaders and the governor negotiate behind closed doors.

E-mail: dpidgeon@lnpnews.com


Recent Posts
Showing 5 most recent comments out of 55 total TalkBack comments about this article
View full comments | Comment on this article
*sigh* I don't work either, but no one will ever hear me complain about what I don't have. Maybe you should have found a man who could support the lifestyle you want so we wouldn't have to put up with your constant whining.
Alyssarah1

QUOTE(pml @ Jul 2 2008, 10:42 AM)
As LDB pointed out, will these children ever be productive members of society? Will they ever pay taxes as we do? We both do by the way. Again this crap is none of your business but you really do hate women who don;t support their husbadnd's financially don't you? I bet your wife had to sign some kind of prenup or promise to work fulltime, clean your house, do your laundry, and basically be two people at once until the day she can get social security.
I guess you do not understand what SELF EMPLOYED means. It means we run a business together. As hubby says why should you spend gas money driving to a job when you can help pout growing our business? I knwo many people where the wife is considered a "housewife" yet does the books and helps in the family business. You do know we got the full tax rebate because we are both considered employed. You really are a neanderthal in the reverse when you think every woman should be getting up and going out to work everyday when there is a lot more than one days worth of work in taking care of a home.


No i'm not a neanderthal, just look at Dees post, that explains it pretty well. Thats your choice to stay at home and do nothing. But don't sit there and complain about not having the money. You get a tax rebate because your both employed? Yeah if that isn't defrauding the government i don't know what is. You can't sit here and expect the government to take care of your healthcare as a smoker then get to say well the people having kids should recieve nothing. It doesn't work both ways, you have to cover everyone or cover no one. But like i said with the kids, they grow up and contribute to the system, where as people like you just take from the system and from the way you describe defraud the system.
QUOTE(Alyssarah1 @ Jul 2 2008, 10:50 AM)
*sigh* I don't work either, but no one will ever hear me complain about what I don't have. Maybe you should have found a man who could support the lifestyle you want so we wouldn't have to put up with your constant whining.

Exactly, you don't ever hear me telling Aly to get a job. I mean we dont' agree on anything, but shes not constantly whining about what she doesn't have or wants.

Lysol54
QUOTE(Lysol54 @ Jul 2 2008, 10:51 AM)

Exactly, you don't ever hear me telling Aly to get a job. I mean we dont' agree on anything, but shes not constantly whining about what she doesn't have or wants.


It looks like we all have the same point (except that part about not agreeing with anything Aly1 says), that no one begrudges PML not working, just her complaining about the consequences of that choice.

dee
I am a childless smoker who supports CHIP. PML, you are not being villified for not having children; if anything it is your callous, who gives a rat's arse, let the kids die attitude that peeves everyone off.

Yes, children are the responsibility of the parents. A couple who chooses to have 3 children and makes $100,000 per year is more than likely able to provide everything for their children without assistance, yes?

Now say one of the parents dies or becomes permanently disabled ... income is now $50K, living parent is now struggling to make ends meet. Or one of the parents works for a company that goes belly up ... again, half the income is gone. If that parent who dies or loses their job was carrying the family insurance, the other spouse and kids are out of luck.

Please don't say, they can get another job ... in this economy, that isn't always such a smart move. New company could go belly up, or start downsizing (last in, first out). Welfare was never intended to be a lifestyle; it was a helping hand when all hell broke loose in someone's life. I hope you and your husband never face a time when you have to choose between buying groceries or keeping the electric on.

Scout
QUOTE(Scout @ Jul 2 2008, 11:09 AM)
I am a childless smoker who supports CHIP. PML, you are not being villified for not having children; if anything it is your callous, who gives a rat's arse, let the kids die attitude that peeves everyone off.

You are 100% correct, I date a smoker, I don't hate smokers. I have many friends who don't have children, I respect their choice. Her attitude is the only problem.

dee
Top Ads