With a bill having passed both houses of Utah's legislature to require insurance companies to cover autism treatment, I wonder if this is a wrong move.
Is the biggest reason insurance companies do not cover it because it is so expensive? Is it true one session might cost $150, and the treatments are ongoing for years and years? I wonder if the autism treatment industry has established a cost that is unnecessarily high, and now the government is coming along and telling the insurance companies to pay up even if it is too much. In a day and age when we see health care bills as something that needs to be reduced, are we going the opposite direction here? Instead of requiring insurance to pay an unreasonable fee, wouldn't it make more sense to require the treatment providers to lower their fees?
Make this clear: I do believe treatment should be covered by insurance. I do not believe those with autism should be without coverage. If there is no other way, go ahead and make this SB57 the law in our state.
But, I do believe there are other ways. I blogged on what I would do eight days ago. Here's the link: http://newsasnewstravelsfast.blogspot.com/2014/03/reduce-autism-therapy-to-20-hour.html
No comments:
Post a Comment