More about the New DSM-V

Post Reply New Topic

I was wondering today if anybody thought the new DSM-V definition for ASD might've been deliberately designed to make it harder to obtain services for financial reasons. After all, the government saves money if services can't be required. Has there been much discussion of this possibility? If it's true, that would explain why complaint of fear that needed services would be lost by some has generated no compassion or consideration from those who made this decision. After all, why fix a problem you've deliberately created in order to cause the very situation people are upset about?

I'm not some big conspiracy theorist. But I know there's all this talk about the fiscal cliff, and states have been complaining of trouble for some time. What better way to chop the budget without looking like you're doing so than to change regulations about qualifications instead of directly announcing cutting of funds for services? Who knows how far back the planning of this decision goes?

I'm ineligible for health insurance in the state I live in because of certain pre conditions (Asperger's, hx of stroke and depression). There is Federal guaranteed health insurance but it would cost me, out of pocket, $935/month. Who in Sam Hill has that kind of money? It's expensive for Uncle Sam to fun healthcare for people with Autism & Asperger's. The solution? Tighten the criteria which would, in effect, "lessen" the number of folks being diagnosed. This saves the government billions. Right now they say 1 in 88 kids are on the spectrum. Just watch. After the change, it'll be something like 1 in 110 kids. Talk about cost saving!

Part of the defense of the DSM-5 standards is that AS was not recieving insurance company support, and HFA was, so they wanted to combine them.

The experts on this can discuss in more detail, but my understanding is that once you accept that there is one ASD spectrum with different degrees of severity, you have to start classifying people on them. The only objective standards that would'nt bring in other disorders were those that a)would require a lifetime of ASD traits, and b)that they are impairments. I believe that the impairment requirement was a well-meaning attempt to limit the DX to those who need services, but that it led to a rejection of logic and reality.

The reality is that there are plenty of people who show traits, but the traitrs are ignored or socially accepted. I would have no problem with the proposed DSM-V except for the fact that it requires "everyday impairment". That's nice and good, but it competely ignores the fact that some (But not all) impairments, particularly those relating to special interests and nonverbal communication, are socially driven.

I'm not a fan of DSM-V for several reasons, and I just deleted my two paragraph rant to stay on topic.

Harder to obtain services? If you are an adult with AS/PDD-NOS there is virtually nothing available as it is. I can't even get disability with the government's own doctor siding with me. I don't know what they will do with kids that get thrown into social communication disorder but as it is parents have to fight for every scrap they get for their kids because the system meets compromises, nobody (ok maybe not nobody but a good chunk) actually gives a s**t about the individual kids.

Would it surprise me if there was a hidden agenda to lower expenditure? Hell no! We live in a society where a rich man who finds loopholes to avoid paying $10 million is taxes is a shrewd man deserving of admiration. If you are a poor man asking for $200 month in food stamps, because you can't afford the 86 hours of work required only to feed a family of 4 every month at minimum wage, you are a freeloader deserving contempt.

Everyone needs to start calling it by its proper name, "DSM-5." No Roman numeral this time. Don't give them the satisfaction of using a Roman numeral! Boldly use the juvenile Arabic "5" that they have chosen, and ridicule their lack of scientific professionalism!