LETTER: Insurers and autism, Medicare cuts

Autism bill veto's a case of fuzzy math

Your editorial about Gov. David A. Paterson's veto of the autism insurance bill ["Tough choices in Albany," Oct. 27] accepts at face value some very fuzzy math about what this important legislation would actually cost New York taxpayers.

The governor's veto message, which estimates the costs at about $70 million annually, and your editorial, omit an important piece of the equation, which is the staggering amount that New York State now spends on autism-specific early intervention and clinical services. The governor's figure rightly included what the state spends through Child Health Plus, but he omitted current spending through Medicaid, public schools and early intervention programs. He did not consider any offset in costs that would be picked up by private insurers if this bill were to pass.

The bill, which would require health plans to cover evidence-based autism treatment, is projected to raise private insurance premiums just $2.30 per member per month. Today, private insurers bear none of the burden, and in fact pocket hefty premiums from families while denying them the help their kids need.

The bill also didn't take into account the substantial long-term costs related to autism, much of which are being borne by the state. According to the Harvard School of Public Health, it costs $3.2 million over their lifetime to care for a person with autism. Multiply that by the number of New Yorkers (20,000) estimated to have a diagnosis and the number is staggering.

The governor's cost projection is wrong, but it is cited in your editorial as the sole reason for opposing this legislation. As 23 states have recognized, "fiscal sanity" requires acknowledging not only the cost to the state through increased premiums, but also the hemorrhaging the state budget will continue to experience if health plans are not required to do their part.

Craig M. Johnson

(D-Port Washington)

Editor's note: The writer represents New York's 7th Senatorial District and was one of several sponsors of the bill.

Don't cut Medicare

Regarding "Docs fear cut in fees" [News, Nov. 9]: At what point will Congress realize that cutting Medicare reimbursements to physicians by 25 percent is an idea whose time should never have come?

How many of our seniors who have spent a lifetime being productive taxpaying citizens, have to literally perish in the bureaucratic maze before our representatives relent and allow the physicians in this country and the patients to whom they administer to live?

Certainly, the members of Congress who support this bill have nothing to fear because they have a rock-solid health and retirement plan that is impervious to change.

Stuart Leopold

Merrick