My floor statement on SB57 Autism Amendments bill

I cited my concerns in my floor comments that went something like this:

While SB57 is a bill that I would typically vote against because of its feel that it is government overreach into private companies and private contracts, but because of the dialog that I have had with the voters in my district I will vote in favor of SB57.  I do appreciate the limits and controls that have been put in as a safety net to protect against costs (1% max premium increase allowed, etc) it does alleviate some of my concerns.

I can't find the results of the survey that I took on this, so I need to post it tomorrow. But here are the results:

Here is a link to the final version of SB57:

Do you support SB57 which requires insurance companies to cover autism treatments?
Yes: 37%
No: 28%
I Don't Know:15%
Other: 20%

These are some of the Other Comments:
Other Responses:
W: Because I have a son on the autism spectrum, my husband is a therapist, and I have three close neighbors with kids with autism, I would say YES! Insurance companies should not discriminate against children with autism, something they are born with. However, I also don't like telling insurance companies they have to spend thousands of dollars on therapy that may or may not work. That goes against my free market philosophy. So, I'm not quite sure how I would vote on this. On the other hand, if we want to look
C: I have a sister with two autistic children so I am sympathetic to this cause and I still do NOT believe we should require private insurance companies to cover autism. Mandates are not the way to address this issue. I have extensive background in insurance and risk management and it autism treatment becomes mandated you will only see the costs of treatment increase. The more you can keep autism out of insurance the more market forces will help autism treatment improve and costs for that treatment decrease.
R: Because "treatment" is not well enough defined and some treatments do not go through the same testing that medical (pharmacological) treatments do, I see this presumptive and easily taken advantage of by treatment providers at the expense of the family.
C: If there is a medical diagnosis, there should be a medical treatment available.
S: I'm shocked that they don't cover it already.
B: Just like with birth control. Insurance companies should be able to chose what to cover/not cover. I do think it is good to cover , but should not be required.
S: It is the difference between functioning autistic adults and autistic adults who cannot function unless treated. I have a son with autism. We are on the autism waiver and could not afford therapy without it!
B: You cannot force the market, and every attempt to do so has only done more harm in the long run.
M: If they cover other learning disabilities
M An insurance company should be allowed to cover what they wish.
J: This is imperative. Particularly in Utah where we have a higher than elsewhere average of children with autism. This condition is proving treatable in some cases when caught early enough. Families are sacrificing their entire lives to try and help their children. This is precisely the kind of condition insurance is for and it treatment should absolutely be covered. It is shameful that this is having to be legislated.

Views: 53


You need to be a member of ©2019 to add comments!

Join ©2019

Interesting Links

© 2019   Created by David Lifferth.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service