Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[
Doctors, like ours, do have an incentive. With an autism diagnosis, we can get ABA, speech, OT and PT, without much difficulty. Before we had the diagnosis, we had to private pay services and they would not cover it. Doctor wanted child in services, so doctor gives the diagnosis to make sure we can get the diagnosis paid for. Many insurances only pay for services under autism.

They aren't getting kick-backs, but they are doing it to get kids services that kids may not have access to depending on the parents financial situation.

We go the diagnosis after a 30 minute visit, mostly talking to me. Our follow-ups are 15-20 minutes.

You go to a lousy, lazy doctor. There are examples of people doing their job poorly in every profession; just because you got a junk ASD diagnosis after 30 minutes doesn't mean that most -- or even many -- doctors hand out autism diagnoses because of "incentives."

Again, you keep failing to understand what "incentivizing" here means. Didn't do well in English class, eh?

Regardless of what you want incentivize to mean, my point is that by diagnosing after only 30 minutes, you/your child did not get good medical care. You cannot extrapolate from your experience to the experiences of those of us that did get careful, thorough medical care and evaluations.

The money trail of autism is easy to follow, actually, if you get your head out of the sand.

This doesn't mean children aren't accurately diagnosed. It means the whole system is set up to encourage doctors to give ASD diagnosis for a much broader range of symptoms, and parents to accept because they are desperate for speech, OT, ABA, etc.

Again, paranoid B.S. that you cannot prove. The articles you posted previously only highlighted that some kids who are profoundly intellectually disabled sometimes get lumped in with autism. Also, not every kid with autism needs ABA or OT. Plus there are lots of specialists that you need to pay out of pocket for like psychiatrists or educational evaluations regardless of diagnosis.

There are actually evidence based instruments that diagnose autism, learning disabilities, or communication disorders. You would actually know this if you got your child a neuropsych evaluation. Talk about head in the sand. You cling to an out-of-date diagnosis. You choose to accept services under a diagnosis, IEP or not and pay out of pocket. Your choice.

For years, we got a run around despite a clear need. They did everything they could to lose our file, and not provide services. You either focus on an IEP and fighting the system, or you go private and get what your child needs. It would have cost us more to get an educational advocate or an attorney than to pay out of pocket for services. What would you choose? I have tried again this year for an IEP, provided a new evaluation and nothing. Its great if you can get one, but we are not at a school willing to and its not worth my time or energy to fight it.

Autism is a very subjective diagnosis. Its a check list that can easily be interpreted differently by each clinician.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's not hard to find dozens of articles about the overdiagnosing of autism. The whole DSM 5 rewrite of ASDs was designed to make the diagnosis harder to get. I guess we will have to await a few years to see if that is the case. But you have to do your due diligence as a parent to really understand the landscape of how children are being diagnosed these days.

It's not hard to find salacious headlines, PP, but it's obviously hard for you to actually read the articles you quoted.

Asperger’s History of Overdiagnosis (which is an opinion piece—not proof and not relevant since Aspergers is no longer a diagnosis)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/opinion/aspergers-history-of-over-diagnosis.html?_r=0

"A 1992 United States Department of Education directive contributed to the overdiagnosis of Asperger syndrome. It called for enhanced services for children diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum and for children with “pervasive developmental disorder — not otherwise specified (P.D.D.-N.O.S.),” a diagnosis in which children with social disabilities could be lumped. The diagnosis of Asperger syndrome went through the roof. Curiously, in California, where children with P.D.D.-N.O.S. were not given enhanced services, autism-spectrum diagnoses did not increase. (through the roof? yeah, real scientific is that the same as a bushel and a peck?)

--Again, school designations are not medical diagnoses.

Study Suggests Autism is Being Overdiagnosed
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/kids-health/study-suggests-autism-being-overdiagnosed-n450671
The CDC found a 30 percent spike in autism diagnoses among 8-year-olds between 2008 and 2010 to one in 68 children. It was a startling finding and one that fueled fears that something was causing more children to develop the condition.

But a report published earlier this year suggested that many cases of developmental delays had simply been re-classified as autism in recent years...

--Yes, it's so hard to read the next sentence to draw an accurate conclusion.

1 in 68 Children Now Has a Diagnosis of Autism-Spectrum Disorder—Why?
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/04/1-in-68-children-now-has-a-diagnosis-of-autism-spectrum-disorder-why/360482/

The article mentions a UNC study:, "A 2007 study out of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill found that over 30 percent of children diagnosed as autistic at age two no longer fit the diagnosis at age four..."

The study also said, "Daniels said. “ASD can be difficult to diagnosis, and if you consider only very young children, you’re likely only to find the most severely affected cases.

It's this study http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/feb07/autism020807.html
and it concludes “UNC study shows state autism rates in line with national average…”

The author of the article in the Atlantic writes, "The parallels between a slow-to-mature toddler and a would-be-mildly- autistic one are so striking that the prospect of a false diagnosis is great." Then concludes, “It's important to not overstate the case. The possibility that a slow-to-mature toddler will be confused as a moderately or severely autistic is slim.”

"Data out of the famed Yale Study Center have demonstrated that toddlers with delayed language development are almost identical to their autistic spectrum...The science stacks up in favor of catching and treating ASD earlier because it leads to better outcomes. Dr. Laura Schreibman, who directs the Autism Intervention Research Program at the University of California, San Diego embodies the perspective of most experts when she says, “Psychologists need to advise parents that the ‘wait-and-see’ approach is not appropriate when ASD is expected. Delaying a diagnosis can mean giving up significant gains of intervention that have been demonstrated before age six.”

--So basically, PP, not every kid who is a late talker needs intervention, but it really doesn't matter if they do. We are increasing the chances of helping kids with Communication Disorders including autism get the help they need.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, you're pathetic and ill-informed, PP.

There are many evidence-based tools for assessing autism. Of course there are shades of gray. No one is arguing that. A test doesn't have to be testing human tissue or performing a brain scan in order to reliable and evidence based.

Why not read something by Stephen Camarata from 2014?
https://medschool.vanderbilt.edu/developmental-disabilities-lab/files/developmental-disabilities-lab/public_files/Publications/Early%20identifi%20cation%20and%20early%20intervention%20in%20autism%20spectrum%20disorders-%20Accurate%20and%20effective.pdf

"However, in clinical practice, autism was often first diagnosed in early school-age or even older children, and toddler or pre-schooler age diagnoses were much rarer. Because of this, there have been ongoing efforts to develop more specific nosology and objective measures to capture the symptomology at earlier and earlier ages (Lord & Jones, 2012; Volkmar, Cohen, & Paul, 1986), including the development and refine- ment of the Autism Diagnostic Observation Scale (ADOS; Lord, Risi, Lambrecht, Cook, Leventhal, DiLavore, et al., 2000; ADOS-2; Lord, Rutter, DiLavore, Risi, Gotham, & Bishop, 2012). This, in turn, has led to more systematic diagnostic practice..."

"Proposed autism guidelines in the DSM-5 (Swedo et al., 2012) may shift inci- dence and eligibility parameters without necessarily seeing a real change in the actual incidence of ASD (see report from the US Centers for Disease Con- trol, 2012)."

"Candidly, there is no doubt in my mind that toddlers with ASD can be reliably identified and that early intervention is potentially highly effective in reducing long-term ASD symptomology."

Well first, thank you for the link -- I had not seen this. I've met personally with Dr. Camarata six times in the past decade, spending a good 10 hours at least one on one with him, and the graphs you pulled out are really cherry-picking what he is saying. Take a look at this:

"It is clear that those children presenting with full autism symptomology, especially displaying noticeably reduced verbal and
non-verbal social engagement, are relatively easy to identify at an early age, and that the long-term
stability for this early identifi cation is relatively high. However, there is far less diagnostic stability over
time for the children who do not display full autism symptomology and are placed on the “ Autism Spectrum ” based on PDD-NOS diagnosis. Clearly, testing the effectiveness of early intervention requires accurate early identifi cation. At this time, it is safe to say that this can be done more readily in AD but would be more problematic in the PDD-NOS form of ASD. It is also clear that confl ating or pooling AD and PDD-NOS into an “ ASD ” treatment group will likely yield high variability, low stability, and potentially uninterpretable or inconclusive results.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's not hard to find dozens of articles about the overdiagnosing of autism. The whole DSM 5 rewrite of ASDs was designed to make the diagnosis harder to get. I guess we will have to await a few years to see if that is the case. But you have to do your due diligence as a parent to really understand the landscape of how children are being diagnosed these days.

It's not hard to find salacious headlines, PP, but it's obviously hard for you to actually read the articles you quoted.

Asperger’s History of Overdiagnosis (which is an opinion piece—not proof and not relevant since Aspergers is no longer a diagnosis)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/opinion/aspergers-history-of-over-diagnosis.html?_r=0

"A 1992 United States Department of Education directive contributed to the overdiagnosis of Asperger syndrome. It called for enhanced services for children diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum and for children with “pervasive developmental disorder — not otherwise specified (P.D.D.-N.O.S.),” a diagnosis in which children with social disabilities could be lumped. The diagnosis of Asperger syndrome went through the roof. Curiously, in California, where children with P.D.D.-N.O.S. were not given enhanced services, autism-spectrum diagnoses did not increase. (through the roof? yeah, real scientific is that the same as a bushel and a peck?)

--Again, school designations are not medical diagnoses.

Study Suggests Autism is Being Overdiagnosed
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/kids-health/study-suggests-autism-being-overdiagnosed-n450671
The CDC found a 30 percent spike in autism diagnoses among 8-year-olds between 2008 and 2010 to one in 68 children. It was a startling finding and one that fueled fears that something was causing more children to develop the condition.

But a report published earlier this year suggested that many cases of developmental delays had simply been re-classified as autism in recent years...

--Yes, it's so hard to read the next sentence to draw an accurate conclusion.

1 in 68 Children Now Has a Diagnosis of Autism-Spectrum Disorder—Why?
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/04/1-in-68-children-now-has-a-diagnosis-of-autism-spectrum-disorder-why/360482/

The article mentions a UNC study:, "A 2007 study out of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill found that over 30 percent of children diagnosed as autistic at age two no longer fit the diagnosis at age four..."

The study also said, "Daniels said. “ASD can be difficult to diagnosis, and if you consider only very young children, you’re likely only to find the most severely affected cases.

It's this study http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/feb07/autism020807.html
and it concludes “UNC study shows state autism rates in line with national average…”

The author of the article in the Atlantic writes, "The parallels between a slow-to-mature toddler and a would-be-mildly- autistic one are so striking that the prospect of a false diagnosis is great." Then concludes, “It's important to not overstate the case. The possibility that a slow-to-mature toddler will be confused as a moderately or severely autistic is slim.”

"Data out of the famed Yale Study Center have demonstrated that toddlers with delayed language development are almost identical to their autistic spectrum...The science stacks up in favor of catching and treating ASD earlier because it leads to better outcomes. Dr. Laura Schreibman, who directs the Autism Intervention Research Program at the University of California, San Diego embodies the perspective of most experts when she says, “Psychologists need to advise parents that the ‘wait-and-see’ approach is not appropriate when ASD is expected. Delaying a diagnosis can mean giving up significant gains of intervention that have been demonstrated before age six.”

--So basically, PP, not every kid who is a late talker needs intervention, but it really doesn't matter if they do. We are increasing the chances of helping kids with Communication Disorders including autism get the help they need.

Anonymous wrote:
It's not hard to find dozens of articles about the overdiagnosing of autism. The whole DSM 5 rewrite of ASDs was designed to make the diagnosis harder to get. I guess we will have to await a few years to see if that is the case. But you have to do your due diligence as a parent to really understand the landscape of how children are being diagnosed these days.

Anonymous wrote:Again, you're pathetic and ill-informed, PP.

There are many evidence-based tools for assessing autism. Of course there are shades of gray. No one is arguing that. A test doesn't have to be testing human tissue or performing a brain scan in order to reliable and evidence based.

Why not read something by Stephen Camarata from 2014?
https://medschool.vanderbilt.edu/developmental-disabilities-lab/files/developmental-disabilities-lab/public_files/Publications/Early%20identifi%20cation%20and%20early%20intervention%20in%20autism%20spectrum%20disorders-%20Accurate%20and%20effective.pdf

"However, in clinical practice, autism was often first diagnosed in early school-age or even older children, and toddler or pre-schooler age diagnoses were much rarer. Because of this, there have been ongoing efforts to develop more specific nosology and objective measures to capture the symptomology at earlier and earlier ages (Lord & Jones, 2012; Volkmar, Cohen, & Paul, 1986), including the development and refine- ment of the Autism Diagnostic Observation Scale (ADOS; Lord, Risi, Lambrecht, Cook, Leventhal, DiLavore, et al., 2000; ADOS-2; Lord, Rutter, DiLavore, Risi, Gotham, & Bishop, 2012). This, in turn, has led to more systematic diagnostic practice..."

"Proposed autism guidelines in the DSM-5 (Swedo et al., 2012) may shift inci- dence and eligibility parameters without necessarily seeing a real change in the actual incidence of ASD (see report from the US Centers for Disease Con- trol, 2012)."

"Candidly, there is no doubt in my mind that toddlers with ASD can be reliably identified and that early intervention is potentially highly effective in reducing long-term ASD symptomology."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[
Doctors, like ours, do have an incentive. With an autism diagnosis, we can get ABA, speech, OT and PT, without much difficulty. Before we had the diagnosis, we had to private pay services and they would not cover it. Doctor wanted child in services, so doctor gives the diagnosis to make sure we can get the diagnosis paid for. Many insurances only pay for services under autism.

They aren't getting kick-backs, but they are doing it to get kids services that kids may not have access to depending on the parents financial situation.

We go the diagnosis after a 30 minute visit, mostly talking to me. Our follow-ups are 15-20 minutes.

You go to a lousy, lazy doctor. There are examples of people doing their job poorly in every profession; just because you got a junk ASD diagnosis after 30 minutes doesn't mean that most -- or even many -- doctors hand out autism diagnoses because of "incentives."

Again, you keep failing to understand what "incentivizing" here means. Didn't do well in English class, eh?

Regardless of what you want incentivize to mean, my point is that by diagnosing after only 30 minutes, you/your child did not get good medical care. You cannot extrapolate from your experience to the experiences of those of us that did get careful, thorough medical care and evaluations.

The money trail of autism is easy to follow, actually, if you get your head out of the sand.

This doesn't mean children aren't accurately diagnosed. It means the whole system is set up to encourage doctors to give ASD diagnosis for a much broader range of symptoms, and parents to accept because they are desperate for speech, OT, ABA, etc.

Again, paranoid B.S. that you cannot prove. The articles you posted previously only highlighted that some kids who are profoundly intellectually disabled sometimes get lumped in with autism. Also, not every kid with autism needs ABA or OT. Plus there are lots of specialists that you need to pay out of pocket for like psychiatrists or educational evaluations regardless of diagnosis.

There are actually evidence based instruments that diagnose autism, learning disabilities, or communication disorders. You would actually know this if you got your child a neuropsych evaluation. Talk about head in the sand. You cling to an out-of-date diagnosis. You choose to accept services under a diagnosis, IEP or not and pay out of pocket. Your choice.

Anonymous wrote:You can't claim that diagnosis is highly subjective, PP. The grad student's "imprinting" theory is just that a theory not proof and based on just 3 clinics--out of how many in the U.S. that exist?

It's not surprising that clinics that specialize in autism actually give autism diagnoses. You're not getting a neutral sample--parents were seeking help for their kids. Who's to say these kids don't have autism or wouldn't get the same diagnosis somewhere else?

I'm sorry you're so bitter over your kid's initial autism diagnosis. I hope you find peace with it some day and find some gratitude in your heart for the developmental pediatrician who diagnosed your son.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[
Doctors, like ours, do have an incentive. With an autism diagnosis, we can get ABA, speech, OT and PT, without much difficulty. Before we had the diagnosis, we had to private pay services and they would not cover it. Doctor wanted child in services, so doctor gives the diagnosis to make sure we can get the diagnosis paid for. Many insurances only pay for services under autism.

They aren't getting kick-backs, but they are doing it to get kids services that kids may not have access to depending on the parents financial situation.

We go the diagnosis after a 30 minute visit, mostly talking to me. Our follow-ups are 15-20 minutes.

You go to a lousy, lazy doctor. There are examples of people doing their job poorly in every profession; just because you got a junk ASD diagnosis after 30 minutes doesn't mean that most -- or even many -- doctors hand out autism diagnoses because of "incentives."

Again, you keep failing to understand what "incentivizing" here means. Didn't do well in English class, eh?

Regardless of what you want incentivize to mean, my point is that by diagnosing after only 30 minutes, you/your child did not get good medical care. You cannot extrapolate from your experience to the experiences of those of us that did get careful, thorough medical care and evaluations.

The money trail of autism is easy to follow, actually, if you get your head out of the sand.

This doesn't mean children aren't accurately diagnosed. It means the whole system is set up to encourage doctors to give ASD diagnosis for a much broader range of symptoms, and parents to accept because they are desperate for speech, OT, ABA, etc.

Again, paranoid B.S. that you cannot prove. The articles you posted previously only highlighted that some kids who are profoundly intellectually disabled sometimes get lumped in with autism. Also, not every kid with autism needs ABA or OT. Plus there are lots of specialists that you need to pay out of pocket for like psychiatrists or educational evaluations regardless of diagnosis.

There are actually evidence based instruments that diagnose autism, learning disabilities, or communication disorders. You would actually know this if you got your child a neuropsych evaluation. Talk about head in the sand. You cling to an out-of-date diagnosis. You choose to accept services under a diagnosis, IEP or not and pay out of pocket. Your choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Some kids who would formerly be considered PDD-NOS would not be on the spectrum (ASD) since they tried to make the criteria more coherent. PDD-NOS was kind of a hodgepodge. But if your daughter has issues, there should be a diagnosis out there for her to get her the help she needs. It may be 'just' DCD or that plus something else. Maybe ASD, maybe something else.