I know it's a tricky subject
There was a small news story on my morning news about Autism. The two people interviewed were from the Canadian Autism Society and from the Ontario Chapter. They talked about the new government initiative and then basically implied that ABA should be fully funded. We got one anecdoctal story about how ABA has helped her son improve a lot.
I don't have a problem with ABA in general. We tried it with Patrick and it turns out he doesn't really learn that way. The few (arguably dubious) studies we have show that it helps about half the kids. And even then, nobody will ever know if those kids would have improved because of maturity at the same rate anyway (Patrick, for example, has improved amazingly without it...just thought I'd trade anecdotes). I do believe that it does help some kids in some areas.
As a taxpayer, this just doesn't seem like reason enough to fund such an expensive therapy. The compassionate side of me doesn't want parents to have to mortgage their homes to pay for therapy. But I don't want to have to pay for someone else's therapy if there's no proof that it's effective. It's a quandry for sure.
I don't have a problem with ABA in general. We tried it with Patrick and it turns out he doesn't really learn that way. The few (arguably dubious) studies we have show that it helps about half the kids. And even then, nobody will ever know if those kids would have improved because of maturity at the same rate anyway (Patrick, for example, has improved amazingly without it...just thought I'd trade anecdotes). I do believe that it does help some kids in some areas.
As a taxpayer, this just doesn't seem like reason enough to fund such an expensive therapy. The compassionate side of me doesn't want parents to have to mortgage their homes to pay for therapy. But I don't want to have to pay for someone else's therapy if there's no proof that it's effective. It's a quandry for sure.
posted by mumkeepingsane | 5:32 AM
4 Comments:
Too bad they couldn't offer parents a choice (either ABA or RDI, something like that). If they fully fund ABA, then parents without huge incomes won't have any choice of which approach to take.
I'm currently trying to figure out whether to get my twins some ABA, so it's a topic fresh on my mind. I'm tending to want to go another route, but it's just a gut feeling.
If I had read this post half a year ago I would have had one opinion. Now, because we have switched from ABA to RDI I have another. Our school district coveres 100% of my son's ABA program that amounts to almost $80,000 per year. But RDI is costing us only about 5,000 per year and it suits us much better. The school district won't pay for any of it. That seems pretty outrageous to me. But I suppose it would be even more outrageous if they didn't cover anything. I just wish it wasn't such an either this or nothing proposition.
I agree with the ABA post. Choice should come in the form of insurance paying, not government. ABA was a whole discussion for us 2 years ago when Sam had no words. Insurance wouldn't cover, school didn't use soley, can't afford TEFRA, and out of pocket costs for it was between $30,000-$40,000 per year. As our SLP says, ABA is a took in the kit, it is not the sole method in working with the child. I just need to say, that your post is another example of why socialized government health insurance doesn't work. Thanks for the thoughts today.
I mentioned to Joe Preston MP at a "do" about simply allowing families to pay for whatever therapy they thought they would like - his comment... "You know that's 2-Tier health care". They'd love to do it... but in Ontario... the attitude is that someone else decides what is appropriate therapy and what is not.
http://farmwifetwo.blogspot.com/2007/04/ok-i-admit-it-im-not-sympathetic.html
Post a Comment
<< Home