Hi all,
As many of you may know, there are proposed changes to the definition of autism in the new DSM-V. It has been a back and forth battle between these clinicians and people rallying for autism. Many people who are diagnosed with autism may no longer qualify for the new diagnosis. They may lose funding and help in school and every day life. Why? Basically, according to the 'experts,' "too many people are being diagnosed with autism" and "it's too expensive to diagnose."
If this is your first time reading, I have two other threads in the autism section here under the same titles. Here's the first link: http://www.christianforums.com/t7626550/
Here is the recent update from Michael John Carley:
--------------------
Please forward to anyone and everyone you deem appropriate . . .
(from Executive Director, Michael John Carley)
Those of you who have been following this issue since it broke just over a month ago know that two studies; one by Yale's Fred Volkmar, and one by LSU's Johnny Matson and Julie Worley state that between 32-40% of people who current qualify for a diagnosis under the DSM-IV, will lose their diagnosisand with it all services or educational fundingunder the proposed changes to the DSM-5 criteria for the reclassified Autism Spectrum Disorder. The Committee's personal and professional attacks on Volkmar's study (but not Matson/Worley's) have usually been backed up with boastful statements akin to "Wait until our field trials come out," indicating their belief that these trials will show evidence that not so many will lose their diagnosis.
Through their admissions that the financial cost of so many diagnosed is a problem that has to be rectified (for just one example, see Committee member Kupfer's remarks in the NYTimes) (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/u...some-parents-watch-closely.html?_r=3&emc=eta1) it seems plain that no matter what these field trials show, the Committee knows full well those who qualify will be dramatically reduced.
But now there appears to be significant problems with the field trials, whose results are due to be announced soon. Relatively no one wanted to participate.
The attached flyer was issued to the 5000 clinicians that the Committee had long ago selected as potential participants. But judging by the bottom section of the flyer, by just two months ago the trials only had 70 clinicians fully engaged. Granted, the DSM-5 Committee could not have expected all 5000 to sign up and participate, but only 70 participants is eons off of what they could have hoped for, and it will call into question whatever results the field trials summon.
Though the majority of the clinical world that GRASP is aware of detest the proposed changes, and do not believe the Committee has acted in good faith, or practice, the lack of participation does not seem to be out of protest. Rather, the Committee has made the act of participating such a burden to clinicians, that most have said "no thanks" to this unpaid, volunteer activity. As one of the 70 participants told GRASP:
"The reason the field trials were 50 times more successful at recruiting participants than at training them and getting them to complete the study is most likely that the training and the trial were too time-consuming for the average clinician to fit into his or her professional life. The training took many hours, including a webinar held late into the evening, and once it was completed, clinicians had to make their own computers available to patients and devote at least one office hour to administering the tests and conducting the interviews. They might also have been put off by the request that one of the two subjects be a new patient. Administering an extensive diagnostic test to a someone with whom you haven't established a therapeutic alliance may be standard procedure in university medical centers, but it is not the way most therapists go about getting started."
Needless to say, 150 or so field subjects, should the findings contest the Volkmar and Matson/Worley studies . . . will be thought of as woefully insufficient to justify the revisions.
Yours, y'all,
Michael John Carley
Executive Director
GRASP
The Global and Regional Asperger Syndrome Partnership, Inc.
666 Broadway, Suite 825
New York, NY 10012
p + f = 1.888.474.7277
GRASP
Help GRASP make a difference. Donate now by clicking the link below:
NYCharities.org
As many of you may know, there are proposed changes to the definition of autism in the new DSM-V. It has been a back and forth battle between these clinicians and people rallying for autism. Many people who are diagnosed with autism may no longer qualify for the new diagnosis. They may lose funding and help in school and every day life. Why? Basically, according to the 'experts,' "too many people are being diagnosed with autism" and "it's too expensive to diagnose."
If this is your first time reading, I have two other threads in the autism section here under the same titles. Here's the first link: http://www.christianforums.com/t7626550/
Here is the recent update from Michael John Carley:
--------------------
Please forward to anyone and everyone you deem appropriate . . .
(from Executive Director, Michael John Carley)
Those of you who have been following this issue since it broke just over a month ago know that two studies; one by Yale's Fred Volkmar, and one by LSU's Johnny Matson and Julie Worley state that between 32-40% of people who current qualify for a diagnosis under the DSM-IV, will lose their diagnosisand with it all services or educational fundingunder the proposed changes to the DSM-5 criteria for the reclassified Autism Spectrum Disorder. The Committee's personal and professional attacks on Volkmar's study (but not Matson/Worley's) have usually been backed up with boastful statements akin to "Wait until our field trials come out," indicating their belief that these trials will show evidence that not so many will lose their diagnosis.
Through their admissions that the financial cost of so many diagnosed is a problem that has to be rectified (for just one example, see Committee member Kupfer's remarks in the NYTimes) (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/u...some-parents-watch-closely.html?_r=3&emc=eta1) it seems plain that no matter what these field trials show, the Committee knows full well those who qualify will be dramatically reduced.
But now there appears to be significant problems with the field trials, whose results are due to be announced soon. Relatively no one wanted to participate.
The attached flyer was issued to the 5000 clinicians that the Committee had long ago selected as potential participants. But judging by the bottom section of the flyer, by just two months ago the trials only had 70 clinicians fully engaged. Granted, the DSM-5 Committee could not have expected all 5000 to sign up and participate, but only 70 participants is eons off of what they could have hoped for, and it will call into question whatever results the field trials summon.
Though the majority of the clinical world that GRASP is aware of detest the proposed changes, and do not believe the Committee has acted in good faith, or practice, the lack of participation does not seem to be out of protest. Rather, the Committee has made the act of participating such a burden to clinicians, that most have said "no thanks" to this unpaid, volunteer activity. As one of the 70 participants told GRASP:
"The reason the field trials were 50 times more successful at recruiting participants than at training them and getting them to complete the study is most likely that the training and the trial were too time-consuming for the average clinician to fit into his or her professional life. The training took many hours, including a webinar held late into the evening, and once it was completed, clinicians had to make their own computers available to patients and devote at least one office hour to administering the tests and conducting the interviews. They might also have been put off by the request that one of the two subjects be a new patient. Administering an extensive diagnostic test to a someone with whom you haven't established a therapeutic alliance may be standard procedure in university medical centers, but it is not the way most therapists go about getting started."
Needless to say, 150 or so field subjects, should the findings contest the Volkmar and Matson/Worley studies . . . will be thought of as woefully insufficient to justify the revisions.
Yours, y'all,
Michael John Carley
Executive Director
GRASP
The Global and Regional Asperger Syndrome Partnership, Inc.
666 Broadway, Suite 825
New York, NY 10012
p + f = 1.888.474.7277
GRASP
Help GRASP make a difference. Donate now by clicking the link below:
NYCharities.org
