A bill requiring insurance companies to cover behavioral treatment for autism passed a New Hampshire House committee yesterday after supporters argued it would save the state nearly $600 million in long-term costs.

State law requires coverage for autism and other developmental disorders, but advocates say no companies cover the behavioral therapies that help many autistic children reach typical levels of social function. The bill would require insurance to pay for those services, as well as speech, occupational and physical therapies, and psychiatric services.

If the bill becomes law next year, New Hampshire would join 15 states that have passed similar regulations, said Kirsten Murphy, administrative director of the New Hampshire Council on Autism Spectrum Disorders. An additional 30 states are considering such legislation, she said.

Murphy has seen firsthand the benefits of intensive behavior-based therapies. When her son Joshua, who has autistic disorder, was 9, officials at his school district suggested he go to live at the Crotched Mountain School for students with disabilities, Murphy said. She demurred, and Joshua instead spent two years learning in his own classroom. There, individual instructors helped him develop the myriad skills he needed in a regular classroom: sitting still, listening to the teacher, getting along with fellow students.

After those years, Joshua rejoined the regular classroom. He's now a sophomore at Hanover High School, where he runs cross country and will soon start thinking about college. Murphy recently received a letter from his English teacher, who said Joshua was a standout student who wrote beautifully.

"Every time he does something that demonstrates a new level of skill, it takes my breath away," Murphy said. "I never thought he would be able to pass an English class."

Yesterday, members of the House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee voted 13-3 to recommend the bill, with committee Republicans casting five votes for and three against.

Rep. John Hunt of Rindge said he opposed the bill because he feared increasing the costs of small employers could force them to stop offering any insurance at all. Hunt said it was unfair to require coverage for the companies subject to state regulation when the state could not make the same demands of its own employees, whose insurance is self-regulated and subject to federal regulation.

"We're going to stick it to small employers," he said. "Why are we pushing the goal posts further back when we don't even want to do it for our own employees?"

The treatments covered by the bill would be needed by about 315 children, according to a study commissioned by the state Insurance Department. The same study found the requirements would lead to a total annual premium increase of between $2 million and $4 million for affected plans, an increase in annual premiums for member of between $10 and $17.

To qualify for coverage, the therapy must be prescribed by a licensed medical professional. Insurance companies would retain the right to question whether treatment is medically necessary.

For Rep. Susi Nord, a Candia Democrat who spearheaded the subcommittee's research, the long-term cost projections made the bill an easy sell to members of both parties.

Access to appropriate treatments helps nearly half of autistic children develop typical social behaviors and an additional 40 percent make significant progress, according to a study by the national Autism Society. When the costs of those treatments are combined with the lifetime costs of services for the child, access to treatments saves $1.9 million per child. For children identified in New Hampshire, that's $597.8 million society won't pay, Nord told committee members yesterday.

"Rather than cutting out things that people actually need, we're cutting out needs that will be on the state," she said. "We should be making situations so people won't be depending on the state in the future."

Backers changed the bill from its original form, which read like a new mandate, to its current language, couched as a clarification of existing law, both to appease insurance company lobbyists and gain the votes of Republicans such as Rep. Chris Nevins, a member of the bill's three-person subcommittee, Murphy said.

Single page