Autism

UPDATE: Richard's spokeperson tweets that the Speaker "was surprised" by Rupp's tweet, and that he's "already selected conferees" for negotiations, though these have not been made official yet. 

------------------

Sources on both sides of the aisle report this morning that Speaker Ron Richard may not appoint conferees to finish this year's autism insurance bill (HB1311) in a timely manner -- or at all. 

Sen. Scott Rupp (R-Wentzville) tweets that "Hse speaker Richards [sic] is blocking autism bill AGAIN!" and the Autism Votes campaign warns that Richard is "blocking your autism insurance reform bill to death."

Sen. Bill Stouffer (R-Napton), one of six conservative Republicans to vote against the Senate's autism insurance bill (SB618), has words of comfort for the families he voted against.  Fear not, struggling families, because "the free market system works."  Via The Turner Report:

I cannot vote to let state government dictate what coverage insurance companies can offer. The free market system works. Letting government in, so they can tell insurance providers who they can and cannot cover, is not a good fix to a situation.

SB618 passed 26-6 on March 18. Last year, however, when the Senate passed Rupp's SB167 by a 29-2 vote, Stouffer has happy to support a similar assault on freedom bipartisan solution.

Speaker Ron Richard has a message for all the haters who didn't like the way he blocked a House vote on autism legislation last year: Kiss his grits.

Speaking Friday with The Globe, The Most Powerful Man in Missouri cited to the recently-passed autism insurance legislation (HB1311) as evidence that he has been on the right side of the debate all along. "We were right, as usual. The House.  As usual, I was right,"  he says. 

In last week's House debate on autism insurance legislation, Rep. Rob Schaaf (R-St. Joseph) proposed an amendment that would expand Medicaid to cover all newly-born children with autism.  His amendment was ultimately defeated by a 65-87 vote, presumably because of concerns about the cost of the bill. 

During the floor debate, Schaaf was asked to explain why he wasn't trying to cover more children with Medicaid. Schaaf's response was pretty...incredible.

QUESTION: You're saying we have the huge payoff under autism, by paying covering these children who are autistic.  And the state's going to get a large payoff over time because we're going to drive those expenses down, and ultimately there will be a payback to the state.  What's the difference on that -- or would you agree -- that we'd have just as much benefit to the state if we covered children with leukemia and children with heart problems, because those children with autism can currently also go to the high risk pool?

SCHAAF: No, but they can't get ABA [applied behavior analysis] in the high risk pool. They can't. It's not available. But the kids with leukemia and heart problems, instead of being a burden on the state for 65 years, they'll just die of leukemia and heart problems.

A new story from KY3's Dave Catanese has an fascinating quote from Speaker Ron Richard's spokesperson on why House leaders refused to allow a vote on autism legislation last year.

"Ron just didn't have the votes [last year]," said Richard spokeswoman Kristen Blanchard. "Publicly legislators were telling people they'd vote for it, but behind closed doors they were saying they couldn't. The Speaker wants everyone to be able to have their input on the bill," she added.

So the Speaker's spokesperson is asking us to believe a significant portion of the GOP caucus was lying to the public about supporting the bill?  Nice! 

Catanese doesn't challenge the assertion from Richard's office in his article, except to weakly state that "some blamed the House for failing." 

Yesterday, hoping to get the jump on an already-scheduled series of announcements by Gov. Jay Nixon, Sen. Scott Rupp and Sen. Eric Schmitt, Speaker Ron Richard held a "hastily announced" conference call to express his support for autism insurance legislation, and specifically, for a bill sponsored by Rep. Dwight Scharnhorst.

Richard's about-face was surprising, given his role in killing similar legislation last year because it wasn't supported by insurance companies.  What makes his supposed support for Scharnhorst's bill even more interesting is that (1) it's already publicly opposed by the insurance lobby and (2) identical to the legislation supported by Nixon, Rupp, Schmitt and bipartisan majorities in both chambers.

But today, the Post-Dispatch's Virginia Young reports that Richard "stopped short of endorsing" Nixon's four-part proposal on autism, even though Nixon's is proposing that the General Assembly pass... the bill Richard said he supported yesterday.

Scrambling to convince the public that he's actually interested in substantive autism insurance legislation, Speaker Ron Richard tried to get a jump on the issue today:

Richard, a Republican, today touted a bill [HB 1311] filed by Rep. Dwight Scharnhorst, R-St. Louis, in a phone conference call that was hastily announced. Richard’s spokeswoman said the bill will get a quick committee hearing.

Richard's newfound interest in the subject is more than a little suspect, of course given his role in killing legislation supported by a broad bipartisan majority last session. Richard has been called out by members of both parties for his work on behalf of insurance companies instead of struggling families.

The South County Times has a good story today about Sen. Eric Schmitt's (R-Glendale) efforts to pass legislation requiring autism coverage in the General Assembly. "It's a parity issue and an issue of fairness and more," Schmitt says. The story includes a lot of moving details about his personal reasons for supporting the legislation.  Schmitt also reminds us why the Republican House Leadership refused to let an autism mandate come up for a vote. 

But does it really matter what the House Interim Committee on Autism decides to do before the next legislative session if Speaker Ron Richard and Floor Leader Steve Tilley won't let it come up for a vote?

There was autism insurance legislation last year, sponsored by GOP Sen. Scott Rupp that passed overwhelmingly by the Senate and enjoyed the support of an overwhelming majority in the House -- 110 Representatives, by Rupp's count. 

Why does Speaker Richard need a new committee recommendation to allow a vote on already-very popular legislation?

Governor Nixon has renewed his call for the legislation mandating autism insurance coverage.  As many Fired Up! readers know, strong autism insurance legislation passed the Senate this year with an overwhelming bipartisan majority, only to be killed at the director of House Speaker Ron Richard. 

In response, the Speaker's office complained they didn't have enough information about the Governor's proposal to fully explain why he would once again fight to kill it -- or at least water it down on behalf of his insurance company friends.

I'm completely dumbfounded by this morning's editorial in the News-Leader, praising Speaker Ron Richard for his "resolve" in working for autism insurance coverage. The piece notes the Governor's "strong stance" on the issue, and the fact that there's momentum for the bill -- but, like last week's AP story, completely ignores the fact that Ron Richard personally killed autism legislation in the just-ended session.  The bill enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support; it passed the Senate, and by all accounts, would have passed the House if Richard had let it come up for a vote.

This isn't some conspiracy theory about backroom dealing. Richard's communications director told the press that the Speaker shut the negotiations down in April, six weeks before the end of session. 

GOP State Sen. Scott Rupp blamed Richard and his leadership team last week by name.  Only then did Richard appoint a panel to study the issue, after he'd been publicly embarrassed (again). 

Yet today's editorial gives credit to Richard for his "resolve," and only refers to opponents as abstract, unnamed forces.