A long-sought bill mandating insurance coverage for childhood autism treatment was described as a compromise Monday, but several advocates said it had been too watered-down to mollify the insurance industry.
Monday's testimony was scheduled for proponents of House Bill 2744, but several of those who testified Monday said the bill was now unacceptable due to coverage caps and provider licensing requirements.
"If you were in my position, would you vote for this bill or not?" Rep. John Doll, R-Garden City, asked Mike Wasmer, an Olathe resident and representative from Autism Speaks.
"I would not," Wasmer said.
Rep. Barbara Bollier, R-Mission Hills, asked early in the hearing where the bill came from, which she later said was an attempt to discern who had been at the table when it was devised.
"I needed a reference point when they said 'this is a compromise,'" Bollier explained after the hearing. "I needed to know what that meant and who were the compromisers."
Wasmer said the compromise was between insurance companies not eager to see an autism mandate go forward and Rep. John Rubin, R-Shawnee, who has promoted the mandate for years.
"No parent, no provider group, no parent advocacy group was at the table," Wasmer said. "This was a discussion between Rep. Rubin and the insurance lobby."
Rubin himself said he found parts of the bill he presented Monday "troubling" but was hoping to advance the issue.
"I think something is better than nothing," Rubin said. "Is it enough? No, I don't think it is."
Here is the original post:
Advocates unhappy with autism bill rewrite