WAS: what is; NOW: NACD fee information

[Guest guest]

While most DAN's are out of plan and require multiple visits and

expensive labwork, NACD is not as expensive as the alternative for

some people. These are OUR personal financial choices:

Early Intervention (not free to all in NJ):

2x/week services in the home = $100 (monthly maximum is around $650)

For a 4-week month cost = $400

=>no guarantee services will be provided by an SLP!

Private Speech:

$20 copay for each of the first 20 visits, then it's out-of-pocket.

Since we live in NJ, this can range from roughly $70 to $240 per

session. I think our best option here would be $90 per session with

a half hour drive each way.

For a 4-week month cost = $160 while insurance is paying

For a 4-week month cost = $720 out-of-pocket

If you combine, annualize, and divide by 12 = $603/month

Private OT has the same parameters for us. So add about half of the

above fee again for OT 1x/wk.

NACD:

is considered " Level I " (average or above function, domestic)

and needs no speech activities on his program, so we paid $550 once

for the evaluation, and now we pay $117/month to get a re-evaluation

and new program every three months. Between evals. we have unlimited

access to assistance by phone.

I'm not sure if Tyler will be Level I or Level II. In many ways, he

has average function, but he is very communication delayed. Also, we

will get a slight discount because he is our second child to go to

the NACD.

Assuming your first child is Level II, the one-time evaluation fee is

$950 and the monthly fee is $185. If you are very speech delayed,

you might also require a consult with the SLP at NACD. I'm not sure

who needs this and who doesn't, but I will post about Tyler's

experience as soon as we have our appointment.

So for us, NACD is actually the cheapest option. Let's say Tyler is

our only child receiving services. This is how it would compare:

--EI = $400, in home, but maybe not an SLP

--Private = $603, at center, doesn't include OT ($243 more)

--NACD = $185 (or $117 if Level I) + a portion of the evaluation fee

spread out over the # of months you estimate you will be using NACD

(For Tyler, who is 19 months old, we are probably looking at several

years. e.g. He has 2-1/2 years before he can attend the public

preschool and receive services there for free. Longer if we are

dissatisfied with those.)

So for us, the choice was clear. If you are paying less or nothing

for EI AND you are happy with what you are getting, you may want to

hold off. Same is true if you have generous insurance.

qualifies for no services, and we are still seeing great gains from

his NACD program. And we can do NACD program work when WE want to,

not when there is an appointment available. And we can do it every

day, which has tremendous benefits compared to outside therapy done

just a few times per week. This is especially wonderful if your

child has apraxia, because frequency is so important in getting that

speech into the motor memory.

None of these equations factor in the other, possibly daunting

expenses that any particular family might have. It is all about

picking the best, most cost-effective options your family can

handle.

Anybody interested in more information can check out www.nacd.org or

email me offline.

in NJ

>

> With DAN you could have a highly qualified medical doctor or a

social

> worker who attended a conference -there are no standards as to who

is

> good. If I had a child that 'didn't' respond to the basics I

> probably would have taken him to a DAN MD (again -not all DANs are

> medical doctors) My son like many others however did well on

therapy

> and fish oils alone (and now with vitamin E)so we never had to go

> that route. (DAN and NACD are both expensive and complex)

>

> NACD -this one parent summed it up back in 2002

> Dear Kim,

> We have limited knowledge with NACD. The program

> seemed very good but very expensive. It was also very

> demanding and we found we couldn't keep up with it for

> our daughter.

> Deborah Lea

>

> If I had a choice I'd go with an association school over NACD for

our

> children if one had the time and money for a special program.

> http://www.usm.edu/dubard/

> http://www.magnoliaspeechschool.org/general/associationmethod.pdf

> And here is info from just one school that uses this approach

> http://www.bridgestherapy.com/bridgesnew_files/Page828.htm

>

> Also just found this on NACD -for the few here that are fans -what

do

> you say about the following?

> (expensive is fine if you can afford it -but is it a " quack "

approach?)

>

> " NACD and IAHP literature both caution that individual results will

> vary. It also implies that if the patient fails to make significant

> progress, the parents are to blame. The NACD also embraces other

> scientifically questionable practices. Its Web site offers the

> following screening test for " food sensitivities " :

>

> Check the following list. If three or more apply to your child, food

> sensitivity may be a problem:

>

> Sometimes congested

> History of ear infections

> Behavior: frequent ups and downs

> Poor attention span at times

> Night or morning coughing spells

> Variable hearing, sometimes good, sometimes poor

> Post-nasal drip

> Headaches

> Periods of restlessness

> Although the problems listed above undoubtedly have a number of

> possible causes, food sensitivities must be considered as one of the

> most likely [9].

>

>

> Food sensitivties have no proven relationship to behavior, and most

> of the above symptoms are not related to food sensitivity. The NACD

> has also offered a consultation with an " orthomolecular physician "

> and a " holistic nutritionist. " Such practitioners are clearly

outside

> of the scientific mainstream. "

> http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/patterning.html

>

> If the basics don't work (therapy -fish oils and vitamin E) then I

> understand why some go to costly and complex extremes. Fortunately

> most here have children that respond to the simple basics. (not that

> therapy is cheap -but way cheaper!)

>

> =====

>

[Guest guest]

I don't know how the subject of NACD started. I just wanted to say

that perhaps the confusion of the subject was why one would do or

start NACD. laid it out nicely below of the difference in

prices for therapy. Janice has mentioned many times to exhaust all

free options first. This year Landon has an excellent school

therapist who he sees 3 times a week and we do pay a 35.00 copay each

week for a private session. We also pay a private tuition of 125.00

a month to keep him out of the disabled Preschool the school had to

offer. NACD sounds like a good option for those that aren't

receiving the appropriate services either through EI, school

district, or insurance won't pay.

Tina

> >

> > With DAN you could have a highly qualified medical doctor or a

> social

> > worker who attended a conference -there are no standards as to

who

> is

> > good. If I had a child that 'didn't' respond to the basics I

> > probably would have taken him to a DAN MD (again -not all DANs are

> > medical doctors) My son like many others however did well on

> therapy

> > and fish oils alone (and now with vitamin E)so we never had to go

> > that route. (DAN and NACD are both expensive and complex)

> >

> > NACD -this one parent summed it up back in 2002

> > Dear Kim,

> > We have limited knowledge with NACD. The program

> > seemed very good but very expensive. It was also very

> > demanding and we found we couldn't keep up with it for

> > our daughter.

> > Deborah Lea

> >

> > If I had a choice I'd go with an association school over NACD for

> our

> > children if one had the time and money for a special program.

> > http://www.usm.edu/dubard/

> > http://www.magnoliaspeechschool.org/general/associationmethod.pdf

> > And here is info from just one school that uses this approach

> > http://www.bridgestherapy.com/bridgesnew_files/Page828.htm

> >

> > Also just found this on NACD -for the few here that are fans -

what

> do

> > you say about the following?

> > (expensive is fine if you can afford it -but is it a " quack "

> approach?)

> >

> > " NACD and IAHP literature both caution that individual results

will

> > vary. It also implies that if the patient fails to make

significant

> > progress, the parents are to blame. The NACD also embraces other

> > scientifically questionable practices. Its Web site offers the

> > following screening test for " food sensitivities " :

> >

> > Check the following list. If three or more apply to your child,

food

> > sensitivity may be a problem:

> >

> > Sometimes congested

> > History of ear infections

> > Behavior: frequent ups and downs

> > Poor attention span at times

> > Night or morning coughing spells

> > Variable hearing, sometimes good, sometimes poor

> > Post-nasal drip

> > Headaches

> > Periods of restlessness

> > Although the problems listed above undoubtedly have a number of

> > possible causes, food sensitivities must be considered as one of

the

> > most likely [9].

> >

> >

> > Food sensitivties have no proven relationship to behavior, and

most

> > of the above symptoms are not related to food sensitivity. The

NACD

> > has also offered a consultation with an " orthomolecular physician "

> > and a " holistic nutritionist. " Such practitioners are clearly

> outside

> > of the scientific mainstream. "

> > http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/patterning.html

> >

> > If the basics don't work (therapy -fish oils and vitamin E) then I

> > understand why some go to costly and complex extremes.

Fortunately

> > most here have children that respond to the simple basics. (not

that

> > therapy is cheap -but way cheaper!)

> >

> > =====

> >

[Guest guest]

I think the eval fee just became $950 for all.

> > >

> > > With DAN you could have a highly qualified medical doctor or a

> > social

> > > worker who attended a conference -there are no standards as to

> who

> > is

> > > good. If I had a child that 'didn't' respond to the basics I

> > > probably would have taken him to a DAN MD (again -not all DANs

are

> > > medical doctors) My son like many others however did well on

> > therapy

> > > and fish oils alone (and now with vitamin E)so we never had to

go

> > > that route. (DAN and NACD are both expensive and complex)

> > >

> > > NACD -this one parent summed it up back in 2002

> > > Dear Kim,

> > > We have limited knowledge with NACD. The program

> > > seemed very good but very expensive. It was also very

> > > demanding and we found we couldn't keep up with it for

> > > our daughter.

> > > Deborah Lea

> > >

> > > If I had a choice I'd go with an association school over NACD

for

> > our

> > > children if one had the time and money for a special program.

> > > http://www.usm.edu/dubard/

> > >

http://www.magnoliaspeechschool.org/general/associationmethod.pdf

> > > And here is info from just one school that uses this approach

> > > http://www.bridgestherapy.com/bridgesnew_files/Page828.htm

> > >

> > > Also just found this on NACD -for the few here that are fans -

> what

> > do

> > > you say about the following?

> > > (expensive is fine if you can afford it -but is it a " quack "

> > approach?)

> > >

> > > " NACD and IAHP literature both caution that individual results

> will

> > > vary. It also implies that if the patient fails to make

> significant

> > > progress, the parents are to blame. The NACD also embraces other

> > > scientifically questionable practices. Its Web site offers the

> > > following screening test for " food sensitivities " :

> > >

> > > Check the following list. If three or more apply to your child,

> food

> > > sensitivity may be a problem:

> > >

> > > Sometimes congested

> > > History of ear infections

> > > Behavior: frequent ups and downs

> > > Poor attention span at times

> > > Night or morning coughing spells

> > > Variable hearing, sometimes good, sometimes poor

> > > Post-nasal drip

> > > Headaches

> > > Periods of restlessness

> > > Although the problems listed above undoubtedly have a number of

> > > possible causes, food sensitivities must be considered as one of

> the

> > > most likely [9].

> > >

> > >

> > > Food sensitivties have no proven relationship to behavior, and

> most

> > > of the above symptoms are not related to food sensitivity. The

> NACD

> > > has also offered a consultation with an " orthomolecular

physician "

> > > and a " holistic nutritionist. " Such practitioners are clearly

> > outside

> > > of the scientific mainstream. "

> > >

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/patterning.html

> > >

> > > If the basics don't work (therapy -fish oils and vitamin E)

then I

> > > understand why some go to costly and complex extremes.

> Fortunately

> > > most here have children that respond to the simple basics. (not

> that

> > > therapy is cheap -but way cheaper!)

> > >

> > > =====

> > >

[Guest guest]

I may have that wrong. I am international since I am from Canada. The

evaluation was so long ago that I cannot remember!

Sorry if I have it wrong!

Janice

[sPAM][ ] Re: WAS: what is; NOW: NACD fee

information

I think the eval fee just became $950 for all.

> > >

> > > With DAN you could have a highly qualified medical doctor or a

> > social

> > > worker who attended a conference -there are no standards as to

> who

> > is

> > > good. If I had a child that 'didn't' respond to the basics I

> > > probably would have taken him to a DAN MD (again -not all DANs

are

> > > medical doctors) My son like many others however did well on

> > therapy

> > > and fish oils alone (and now with vitamin E)so we never had to

go

> > > that route. (DAN and NACD are both expensive and complex)

> > >

> > > NACD -this one parent summed it up back in 2002

> > > Dear Kim,

> > > We have limited knowledge with NACD. The program

> > > seemed very good but very expensive. It was also very

> > > demanding and we found we couldn't keep up with it for

> > > our daughter.

> > > Deborah Lea

> > >

> > > If I had a choice I'd go with an association school over NACD

for

> > our

> > > children if one had the time and money for a special program.

> > > http://www.usm.edu/dubard/

> > >

http://www.magnoliaspeechschool.org/general/associationmethod.pdf

> > > And here is info from just one school that uses this approach

> > > http://www.bridgestherapy.com/bridgesnew_files/Page828.htm

> > >

> > > Also just found this on NACD -for the few here that are fans -

> what

> > do

> > > you say about the following?

> > > (expensive is fine if you can afford it -but is it a " quack "

> > approach?)

> > >

> > > " NACD and IAHP literature both caution that individual results

> will

> > > vary. It also implies that if the patient fails to make

> significant

> > > progress, the parents are to blame. The NACD also embraces other

> > > scientifically questionable practices. Its Web site offers the

> > > following screening test for " food sensitivities " :

> > >

> > > Check the following list. If three or more apply to your child,

> food

> > > sensitivity may be a problem:

> > >

> > > Sometimes congested

> > > History of ear infections

> > > Behavior: frequent ups and downs

> > > Poor attention span at times

> > > Night or morning coughing spells

> > > Variable hearing, sometimes good, sometimes poor

> > > Post-nasal drip

> > > Headaches

> > > Periods of restlessness

> > > Although the problems listed above undoubtedly have a number of

> > > possible causes, food sensitivities must be considered as one of

> the

> > > most likely [9].

> > >

> > >

> > > Food sensitivties have no proven relationship to behavior, and

> most

> > > of the above symptoms are not related to food sensitivity. The

> NACD

> > > has also offered a consultation with an " orthomolecular

physician "

> > > and a " holistic nutritionist. " Such practitioners are clearly

> > outside

> > > of the scientific mainstream. "

> > >

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/patterning.html

> > >

> > > If the basics don't work (therapy -fish oils and vitamin E)

then I

> > > understand why some go to costly and complex extremes.

> Fortunately

> > > most here have children that respond to the simple basics. (not

> that

> > > therapy is cheap -but way cheaper!)

> > >

> > > =====

> > >

[Guest guest]

I am sending away our packets tomorrow. When we get the bill which I

will gladly pay with $ we don't have I'll post the cost. Whatever it

is it is likely the cheapest and most effective way to therapize my

kids.

>

> I may have that wrong. I am international since I am from Canada.

The evaluation was so long ago that I cannot remember!

>

> Sorry if I have it wrong!

>

> Janice

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yeah you are right Liz. At our last eval, Bob said they got rid of

the level I and level II options at NACD. He said it was too

confusing. So, now they just have one fee for all children which is

at the level II price.