SPD Support Forum

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is proposing a change in the definition of Autism Disorder in the 5th edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5.)

This new definition of autism could exclude several children who currently have the diagnosis of Asperger’s and PDD-NOS (Pervasive Developmental Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified.) This is relevant, because insurance companies, schools, state and local agencies use the DSM diagnosis to decide on treatment plans, compensation and services.

Experts believe that this new definition will also decrease the diagnosis rate of autism. ABC news reported on a statement by Dr. Fred Volkmar of Yale University. According to analysis of data from a 1994 study, “half of the people diagnosed with autism in that trial would no longer merit a diagnosis under the new proposed criteria.”[/b][/b][/u]

If patients lose their diagnosis, they may no longer be eligible for important services and therapies. NYTimes reports that the proposed changes “would probably exclude people with a diagnosis who were higher functioning.” The changes could affect thousands of children and adults who rely on the services they receive because of their diagnosis.

Dr. Geri Dawson, the Chief Science Officer of Autism Speaks, writes in her blog that she recognizes that while proposed changes have a “scientific rationale, we at Autism Speaks are likewise concerned about their effect on access to services. It is crucial that these changes don’t result in discrimination against people who are struggling with autism symptoms.”

read this and more in the links bellow:

http://blogs.babycenter.com/mom_stories/...efinition/
http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/12-03%20Au...20DSM5.pdf

IN MY OPINION: THAT'S ANOTHER POLITICAL MANEUVER TO LOWER THE COSTS OF HEALTH CARE TREATMENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT. THE HIGH FUNCTIONING AUTISM KID WILL BE FORSAKEN TO HIS OWN SORT. APA SHOULD WORK FOR BETTER TREATMENT, CURE AND PREVENTION OF AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER, NOT TO CUT COSTS FOR THE GOVERNMENT.

This is just inaccurate.

Yes, they are talking about a new diagnostic criteria in the DSM-5.

No, it won't drop half of ASD children. No, it won't prevent them from getting treatment. No, its not this thing that articles should be scaremongering about.

The new criteria are actually cleaning up the old criteria and are actually far better. It is theoretically possible for a few people to no longer qualify - however they're also adding social communication disorder in to the DSM which those people would fall into.

This study that's being referenced was a very poorly done study that is only being used for the point of scaremongering. All of the better done studies (like not using data collected years ago that doesn't actually have the information relevant for the study) have said that it won't be dropping the higher functioning people, whether they're children or adults.

The new criteria is specifically written up to be general and specifically written up to include a wide range of people. People who don't bother looking at the criteria might think they start dropping higher functioning people, but its really not a risk.

1. People who are diagnosed are already diagnosed. They aren't losing their diagnoses.
2. The criteria has been explicitly written for making sure it includes higher functioning people.
3. The diagnosis actually doesn't get even children much in the way of treatment and in most states doesn't get them it covered by insurance. They can still get OT, speech therapy, and such without a diagnosis. I'm someone who feels someone should get diagnosed because of the help that people can get, but truthfully, you can get it without the diagnosis, it just is far more irritating to do without, and actually easier to do as a child than as an adult. I wasn't diagnosed until age 22. I saw autism specialists before that point, despite not having a diagnosis.

Really, you don't have reason to be scared.

And the new criteria is far far better written than the old one.

I got my aspergers diagnosis because of updated definitions.