OT out of pocket ADHD - worth it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, OT is the only thing that has helped my daughter. I’m in several sensory parenting groups, and that seems to be a common refrain, so I’m surprised that several people here are saying that it didn’t help.

because one hour a week of OT isn’t actually going to do anything for sensory seeking. there’s a lot of woo in OT. OT worked for us for actual concrete issues like handwriting and fine motor. OT is supposed to aid the patient in doing specific tasks for daily life (that’s the “occupational” part) not change their nervous system.

12:24 here. I actually had 2 kids in OT. I had to pay for the first out of pocket, the 2nd was in-network. I wasn't looking to 'change [my DC's} nervous system. I wasn't looking to 'fix' my kid. I was looking to better understand why my kids were they way they were, what could help them and what I could do to help/support them. My younger DS was a sensory seeker and a biter when he got overstimulated. I learned from OT what the triggers were, why my kid was triggered, how to redirect him and then help him understand why he was doing what he was doing.

The occupation/ ADL for a kid is play. Can't be successful at play if you bite when you get excited. Can't be successful at play when you throw a tantrum when you get frustrated with a game or when you're losing. It was not uncommon for us to have a group session with a couple of other kids and focus on being a good sport, turn taking and communicating. Our OT taught my oldest to tie his shoes. She tried with my younger DS but then suggested Lock Laces (which, at 16, he still uses). OT was never one hour a week for us - because, you're right, that isn't actually going to do anything - which is why we incorporated it into all our ADL. We got a body sock, a swing, a yoga ball, made a sensory box, etc. OT wasn't just for our kids, it was for us, too.

Oh, and we also did HWT but I wouldn't have expected a private OT to do that. That's something the school OT would work on if you have an IEP. Not that we didn't work on fine motor skills both in session and at home.

[Anonymous]

I have ADHD and have several family members with it. I've never once heard of this being a symptom. Isn't that ASD? Perhaps it would be covered for that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have ADHD and have several family members with it. I've never once heard of this being a symptom. Isn't that ASD? Perhaps it would be covered for that?

It's likely you really don't know much about ADHD. While sensory seeking behaviors may be more prevalent in people with ASD, it's also common for people with ADHD to have them. It doesn't matter what ADHD subtype the individual has.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149116/
https://chadd.org/adhd-weekly/sensory-processing-disorder-adhd-what-to-know/

[Anonymous]

That article doesn't support your position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have ADHD and have several family members with it. I've never once heard of this being a symptom. Isn't that ASD? Perhaps it would be covered for that?

It is absolutely a symptom for ADHD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That article doesn't support your position.

DP. Sure it does. Sensory seeking behaviors are common in people/kids with ADHD. It may not be classified as a disorder but that doesn't mean the behaviors aren't present, problematic or in need of remediation/accommodation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, OT is the only thing that has helped my daughter. I’m in several sensory parenting groups, and that seems to be a common refrain, so I’m surprised that several people here are saying that it didn’t help.

because one hour a week of OT isn’t actually going to do anything for sensory seeking. there’s a lot of woo in OT. OT worked for us for actual concrete issues like handwriting and fine motor. OT is supposed to aid the patient in doing specific tasks for daily life (that’s the “occupational” part) not change their nervous system.

12:24 here. I actually had 2 kids in OT. I had to pay for the first out of pocket, the 2nd was in-network. I wasn't looking to 'change [my DC's} nervous system. I wasn't looking to 'fix' my kid. I was looking to better understand why my kids were they way they were, what could help them and what I could do to help/support them. My younger DS was a sensory seeker and a biter when he got overstimulated. I learned from OT what the triggers were, why my kid was triggered, how to redirect him and then help him understand why he was doing what he was doing.

The occupation/ ADL for a kid is play. Can't be successful at play if you bite when you get excited. Can't be successful at play when you throw a tantrum when you get frustrated with a game or when you're losing. It was not uncommon for us to have a group session with a couple of other kids and focus on being a good sport, turn taking and communicating. Our OT taught my oldest to tie his shoes. She tried with my younger DS but then suggested Lock Laces (which, at 16, he still uses). OT was never one hour a week for us - because, you're right, that isn't actually going to do anything - which is why we incorporated it into all our ADL. We got a body sock, a swing, a yoga ball, made a sensory box, etc. OT wasn't just for our kids, it was for us, too.

Oh, and we also did HWT but I wouldn't have expected a private OT to do that. That's something the school OT would work on if you have an IEP. Not that we didn't work on fine motor skills both in session and at home.

You listed one concrete thing that yes, OTs can do - tie shoes. The rest aren’t really in their scope of practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, OT is the only thing that has helped my daughter. I’m in several sensory parenting groups, and that seems to be a common refrain, so I’m surprised that several people here are saying that it didn’t help.

because one hour a week of OT isn’t actually going to do anything for sensory seeking. there’s a lot of woo in OT. OT worked for us for actual concrete issues like handwriting and fine motor. OT is supposed to aid the patient in doing specific tasks for daily life (that’s the “occupational” part) not change their nervous system.

12:24 here. I actually had 2 kids in OT. I had to pay for the first out of pocket, the 2nd was in-network. I wasn't looking to 'change [my DC's} nervous system. I wasn't looking to 'fix' my kid. I was looking to better understand why my kids were they way they were, what could help them and what I could do to help/support them. My younger DS was a sensory seeker and a biter when he got overstimulated. I learned from OT what the triggers were, why my kid was triggered, how to redirect him and then help him understand why he was doing what he was doing.

The occupation/ ADL for a kid is play. Can't be successful at play if you bite when you get excited. Can't be successful at play when you throw a tantrum when you get frustrated with a game or when you're losing. It was not uncommon for us to have a group session with a couple of other kids and focus on being a good sport, turn taking and communicating. Our OT taught my oldest to tie his shoes. She tried with my younger DS but then suggested Lock Laces (which, at 16, he still uses). OT was never one hour a week for us - because, you're right, that isn't actually going to do anything - which is why we incorporated it into all our ADL. We got a body sock, a swing, a yoga ball, made a sensory box, etc. OT wasn't just for our kids, it was for us, too.

Oh, and we also did HWT but I wouldn't have expected a private OT to do that. That's something the school OT would work on if you have an IEP. Not that we didn't work on fine motor skills both in session and at home.

You listed one concrete thing that yes, OTs can do - tie shoes. The rest aren’t really in their scope of practice.

12:24 here. I don't know why you have such a limited view of OTs and feel free to let everyone know how narrow your view is. Every thing the OTs did was 'within scope' and there is a lot of academic research available on the use of 'play' in OT. And, importantly, it was covered by my insurance. Insurance didn't require 'concrete' results. It required continued mprovement - the same criteria it required for my FIL after his stroke.