Comments on: Autism Insurance Coverage in Arizona

By: pam

pam — Sun, 18 May 2008 22:04:33 +0000

I would like to know if anyone has a solution for those of us with a child on the spectrum and are self employeed.
Can we join a group insurance or what can we do to get the AZ insurance??
Thanks

By: Chris Butterworth

Chris Butterworth — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:47:06 +0000

In response to KimJ’s comments about Arizona’s DDD staff & direction – we’ve found that the families who wait for the state to approve them, give them direction, and provide support for them, are going to be waiting a LONG TIME. The State, like many social services, is under-staffed, under-funded, and simply not very good at “driving the train.”

On the other hand, families who are very proactive generally don’t have these issues. In most cases, we’ll find our own services/providers, and then tell our DDD case worker what needs to be changed.

The beaurocracy doesn’t discriminate based on income, race, or any other status. But it definitely favors those who are proactive. Do your own research, determine what you want/need for your child, and odds are you’ll be able to get it.

By: Insurance Coverage for ABA: On Treatment and Teaching

Insurance Coverage for ABA: On Treatment and Teaching — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:40:09 +0000

[...] to $50,000 in coverage per year, while children aged 9-16 would benefits capped at $25,000 (and go here for some earlier discussion of the legislation and the different amounts to be allotted to children [...]

By: KimJ

KimJ — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 18:47:04 +0000

Well, it took several months to start the intake process when we transferred my son’s case from CA to here. Once the intake was done, I didn’t hear from anyone for another 5-6 months for further evaluation. I didn’t understand the next step, a medical assessment to determine that my son couldn’t care for himself (what 7 year old could?). I asked what services would be available if we did the next round of assessments (my son already is eligible for DDD assistance because of his Dx) and no one would tell me. they said they needed to get him on the roster first. I also kept telling the people on the phone that my son didn’t require nursing care and they said it was okay that he could still qualify for “funding” if for example, he couldn’t find his home from somewhere else or he couldn’t make his meals. I got the picture that they were interested in him qualifying for money but not explaining for what. So, I stopped that part of the application process. So, he’s on the state roster for DDD but we get no services at all except through the school district (which is completely unrelated). We have a case worker that has never introduced his/herself.
One of the factors in being discouraged from signing up for services is that my son met all the eligibility in CA and yet they had no appropriate services for us besides respite care. They didn’t have useful therapies for a child considered “high functioning”. They kept saying they were used to “at risk” kids (children at risk for institutional settings or jail).
I rambled, sorry.

By: Kristina Chew, PhD

Kristina Chew, PhD — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:03:27 +0000

@KimJ,

So if you don’t mind my asking—-how hard is it to get them to return those calls?

By: KimJ

KimJ — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 16:16:42 +0000

The thing is that therapies are covered by the state anyhow, if you can get them to return your phone calls. I don’t see the benefit of additional coverage if you already are covered by DDD.
The only thing that often isn’t covered is diagnosing autism (my son was dx’ed in CA under the Lanterman Act).

By: peony

peony — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 13:25:48 +0000

Regan, Thanks for the link as well.

The article states “companies with at least 50 workers and with employer-purchased insurance for companies” will be mandated to provide autism coverage. I guess families working for big companies in AZ will be excluded since most big companies are self-insured and do not have to follow state regulation on insurance.

By: Kristina Chew, PhD

Kristina Chew, PhD — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 04:11:39 +0000

VAB’s earlier point about seeking such services “under the rubric of education” resonates with me. I wanted to note how the AZ law provides more funds for younger kids as so much attention is now being paid to younger children, much more than there was to those who are older now.

That said, this thread is leading me to run through what we’ve spent on Charlie over the years and whether it was a lot more when he was younger.

By: Another Voice

Another Voice — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 04:09:11 +0000

Regan.

Thanks for the link, it provided a useful overview. The impact per insured is less than I had expected.

By: Regan

Regan — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 03:47:42 +0000

I don’t begrudge the younger kids. Even though older kids may need support (as I am well aware with Eleanor), the extant data supports the front-loading of services as impacting trajectory, and I see the extension of services through 16, and even 25 (as I believe Michigan’s bills request) as substantial improvement over the big zero that we encountered 9 years ago. I believe that many of these bills have specified review periods to see how implementation is occurring and effects on outcomes.