Re: Re: Blagojevich Signs Autism Bill

[Guest guest]

It wouldn't matter if the individual with autism has Aspergers or was high

functioning.

, basically, it is my understanding that insurance companies can no

longer 'discriminate' when it comes to paying for speech, OT, and physical

therapies.  Many of them wouldn't pay if the diagnosis was autism (or any other

similar disability), but these therapies would have been covered if the patient

was involved in an accident or had another illness.  For parents who work for

large companies, this is a great victory.  For smaller companies, I don't think

so.  At my husband's company, the insurance premiums are based on a health

questionaire that the employee (or in our case ME) fills out.  The premium for

our family will skyrocket because the company has less than 50 people enrolled

in health insurance.  So either the employer will pay a larger portion, or the

employee will.  Right now, his employer only charges a fixed amount to the

employees, so he's been eating the higher premiums for employees and dependents

with preexisting

conditions (his previous employer didn't, so our premium was quite high).   The

advantage would be that with it being a group plan, there is no preexisting

clause or exclusions.  The disadvantage would be the higher cost or even small

companies dropping health plans all together.

Finato

www.AngelSpeaks.com

www.wegrowdreams.org

From: <faith60047@...>

Subject: Re: Blagojevich Signs Autism Bill

IPADDUnite

Date: Sunday, December 14, 2008, 7:58 PM

I wonder if the autism bill is for people with the high spectrum

autisim like I have.

>

> Nice that something good has happened in this state!

> Thank you for letting us know, Charlotte.

> Ellen

> Ellen Garber Bronfeld

> egskb@...

> Blagojevich Signs Autism Bill

>

>

> Folks, I just saw this on the web:

>

> Embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is still conducting state

business

> even though there have been numerous calls for him to resign and

a request

> was made to the state Supreme Court to strip him of his powers.

>

> His office released a statement today that said he had signed a

bill that

> would give insurance coverage to parents of children with autism.

>

> Just hours earlier, Illinois Atty. Gen. Madigan asked the

state Supreme

> Court to prevent Blagojevich from serving as governor.

>

> He was arrested Tuesday on federal corruption charges.

>

> Lawmakers also have demanded that Blagojevich be impeached.

>

> He has defiantly ignored the pressure, showing up for work every

day since

> his arrest.

>

>

[Guest guest]

The bill in Illinois covers to age 22, as I recall...so, if you are older than

that, it is a moot point.

Ellen

Ellen Garber Bronfeld

egskb@...

Blagojevich Signs Autism Bill

>

>

> Folks, I just saw this on the web:

>

> Embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is still conducting state

business

> even though there have been numerous calls for him to resign and

a request

> was made to the state Supreme Court to strip him of his powers.

>

> His office released a statement today that said he had signed a

bill that

> would give insurance coverage to parents of children with autism.

>

> Just hours earlier, Illinois Atty. Gen. Madigan asked the

state Supreme

> Court to prevent Blagojevich from serving as governor.

>

> He was arrested Tuesday on federal corruption charges.

>

> Lawmakers also have demanded that Blagojevich be impeached.

>

> He has defiantly ignored the pressure, showing up for work every

day since

> his arrest.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Back when Neal was young, insurance companies would only pay for speech therapy

if the ability to speak had been lost through illness or injury...such as a

stroke or a serious car accident.  (The only exception I was aware of was some

plans in BCBS).

Even the old ICHIP (Illinois' health insurance program for folks of all ages who

couldn't get health insurance coverage--the price was steep, but you got

covered) wouldn't cover speech therapy for anything else.

My theory is that insurance companies knew that any other need for speech

therapy was going to require years of therapy, rather than months, so they set

it up that way.  They were not discriminating against autism per se.  They were

discriminating against everyone who needed speech therapy but had not yet

developed speech.

Back then, I heard that one of the magic bullets was to get something covered

under Medicare & Medicaid.  Insurance companies were likely to follow suit.  And

's right; smaller employers are not always subject to the same rules, but I

think that an employer with over 20 full-time employees must offer them

insurance.

-Gail

From: Finato <cmfinato@...>

It wouldn't matter if the individual with autism has Aspergers or

was high functioning.

, basically, it is my understanding that insurance companies can no

longer 'discriminate' when it comes to paying for speech, OT, and physical

therapies.  Many of them wouldn't pay if the diagnosis was autism (or any other

similar disability), but these therapies would have been covered if the patient

was involved in an accident or had another illness.  For parents who work for

large companies, this is a great victory.  For smaller companies, I don't think

so.  At my husband's company, the insurance premiums are based on a health

questionaire that the employee (or in our case ME) fills out.  The premium for

our family will skyrocket because the company has less than 50 people enrolled

in health insurance.  So either the employer will pay a larger portion, or the

employee will.  Right now, his employer only charges a fixed amount to the

employees, so he's been eating the higher premiums for employees and dependents

with preexisting

conditions (his previous employer didn't, so our premium was quite high).   The

advantage would be that with it being a group plan, there is no preexisting

clause or exclusions.  The disadvantage would be the higher cost or even small

companies dropping health plans all together.

 

[Guest guest]

Here is where it pays to have a slightly older child...Noah, who is now almost

23, had speech therapy twice a week, OT twice a week and even Hippotherapy

covered by insurance 15-20 years ago (80 % after we met our deductible, which

was usually by Feb 1!)...We were the first generation of parents using a lot of

therapies.

The insurance situation changed when Noah got into his teens. You are right

Gail...insurance companies began to figure out that the speech therapy and all

the rest would be ongoing...

Ellen

Ellen Garber Bronfeld

egskb@...

Re: Re: Blagojevich Signs Autism Bill

Back when Neal was young, insurance companies would only pay for speech

therapy if the ability to speak had been lost through illness or injury...such

as a stroke or a serious car accident. (The only exception I was aware of was

some plans in BCBS).

Even the old ICHIP (Illinois' health insurance program for folks of all ages

who couldn't get health insurance coverage--the price was steep, but you got

covered) wouldn't cover speech therapy for anything else.

My theory is that insurance companies knew that any other need for speech

therapy was going to require years of therapy, rather than months, so they set

it up that way. They were not discriminating against autism per se. They were

discriminating against everyone who needed speech therapy but had not yet

developed speech.

Back then, I heard that one of the magic bullets was to get something covered

under Medicare & Medicaid. Insurance companies were likely to follow suit. And

's right; smaller employers are not always subject to the same rules, but I

think that an employer with over 20 full-time employees must offer them

insurance.

-Gail

From: Finato <cmfinato@...>

It wouldn't matter if the individual with autism has Aspergers or was high

functioning.

, basically, it is my understanding that insurance companies can no

longer 'discriminate' when it comes to paying for speech, OT, and physical

therapies. Many of them wouldn't pay if the diagnosis was autism (or any other

similar disability), but these therapies would have been covered if the patient

was involved in an accident or had another illness. For parents who work for

large companies, this is a great victory. For smaller companies, I don't think

so. At my husband's company, the insurance premiums are based on a health

questionaire that the employee (or in our case ME) fills out. The premium for

our family will skyrocket because the company has less than 50 people enrolled

in health insurance. So either the employer will pay a larger portion, or the

employee will. Right now, his employer only charges a fixed amount to the

employees, so he's been eating the higher premiums for employees and dependents

with preexisting

conditions (his previous employer didn't, so our premium was quite high).

The advantage would be that with it being a group plan, there is no preexisting

clause or exclusions. The disadvantage would be the higher cost or even small

companies dropping health plans all together.