My email to Representatives

It has come to my attention that Arkansas has voted to reduce the amount of therapies for children with special needs. This is absolutely outrageous and disheartening for so many reasons. When my son, Aidan, was first diagnosed with Mosaic Down syndrome at six months of age I was not a nurse - I was a very worried parent who did lots of research attempting to find out what to do to give my child the best chance possible in life. During this research, I became upset knowing that he had missed the first part of his life for the opportunity to receive physical, occupational, and speech therapies. Early intervention through these therapies is critical in helping kids with special needs in their development. First of all, as parents of a special needs child, I feel we have done everything thus far we can to help Aidan reach his maximum potential. Since the age of 18 months, we have sent Aidan to an amazing school in Little Rock, which provides him with the help and therapy he needs to assist in development. An individual who has never had a child with a developmental disability might think that a Down syndrome diagnosis would constitute plenty of opportunities for therapy funding, but as I assume you all already know, this is not true. Primary insurance does not pay for therapy services, which means that in addition to a primary insurance we must pay out of pocket for a type of Arkansas Medicaid insurance called TEFRA that does cover therapy services. The combination of both the private special needs school and TEFRA insurance is not an insignificant cost, in fact, I feel terrible for those individuals that have kids with special needs who do not have the luxury to afford a wonderful school like the one he attends. As you all know, to qualify for therapy services each child must be evaluated biannually to determine (per Medicaid standards) whether or not they "qualify" for these services. Just last year Aidan did not qualify for any physical therapy, even though he continuously scores low on these evaluations. The "qualifications" remain so high, that even if a child is considered on a less than "profoundly delayed" level, therapy services may be reduced or denied. To give you an idea of how effective therapy has been for Aidan - I can tell a drastic difference just talking to Aidan in his goals, objectives, and therapy styles from the speech therapist he had a few months ago versus the one he currently has. I could also tell a significant difference in when Aidan received one hour of physical therapy a week versus none. He now receives three hours of speech therapy a week, two hours of occupational therapy, and one hour of physical therapy. A decision to reduce these therapies in any capacity will negatively affect not only my child but many children who require these services that are detrimental to their development. If a child must be profoundly delayed to receive therapy services, how much more can you raise the bar to disqualify children for these necessary services? Healthcare today continues to transition from fee-for-service to value-based care. A value-based care model is designed to assist individuals and create a positive health impact for them long-term, vastly reducing long-term care costs. I wonder what in the world would convince you that these children who need these services, and will most definitely benefit from them for the rest of their lives, might not be deserving of these services. I also worry that if you are looking at the short-term financial implications, and not the long-term implications. The less developed, socially awkward, unable to communicate, or physically unable these individuals are, the less they are prepared for adulthood. By limiting their opportunities, you are limiting their chances to successfully adapt in the “real world” and reduce the likelihood of becoming a wage-earner in any capacity. When considering long-term consequences, will you not anticipate seeing an increase in the number of SSI disability benefits paid out, leading to further consumption of Arkansas’s and federal financial resources? Will you not also see a further spike in the utilization of your resources when these children grow into adults, who perhaps have lost their parents - their only caregivers. What will then happen to these kids, who at one point had an opportunity to learn, grow, and develop with the assistance of therapy services that was then significantly reduced, and in many instances cut in half? They will potentially be placed in care centers, right? Who will fund that? Yes – you, Arkansas. So where is the value in reducing these services when you are looking at the long-term value associated with it? I cannot imagine why, of all things, Arkansas would choose to cut funding for this incredibly valuable service, especially when most individuals are trying to give their children the best chance possible and those children already have unimaginable struggles ahead of them. Sincerely, Kimberly Hines – a very concerned mother to an amazing little boy