Non Sequitur of the Day
This argument for requiring insurance to cover autism treatment just doesn’t make sense (emphasis mine):
Grisamore noted the exponential increase of the incidence of autism—going from one in 10,000 children to one in 150— as proof that his legislation is urgently needed. He also pointed to the growing number of states that that have passed and signed similar legislation as another indicator of the need for Missouri to do the same.
Insurance experts have documented that such insurance coverage would require less than one half of one percent in premium increases.
You can’t have it both ways. Either autism is becoming ubiquitous, or it will be cheap for insurance to cover its treatment. Autism treatment is expensive (hence the demand for an insurance mandate) and passing a law won’t change that reality. There’s no free lunch.
