New Autism Education Law Enacted

New Autism Education Law Enacted

By Ann Guay,

Arc Govt. Affairs Committee & AFAM

steering committee:

Governor Romney signed H. 1123, An Act to Address the Special Education Needs of Children with Autism Spectrum, into law on April 7. This new law, which was introduced by Rep. Barbara L’Italien, represents an important victory for the Commonwealth’s children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. As the mother of a child with autism who is also a non-practicing attorney, I thought it was important to address what I believe to be the critical importance of this bill for the Commonwealth’s children with ASD. Currently, I am a volunteer advocate at Massachusetts Advocates for Children working on the Children’s  Autism Medicaid Waiver. On September 21, 2005, parent Laurel Collins and I testified before the Joint Education Committee Special Education. H. 1123 (now Chapter 57 of the Acts of 2006) requires an IEP team to consider and “specifically address” a full range of educational needs for children resulting from Autism Spectrum Disorder, specifically including: verbal and non-verbal communication needs; the need to develop social interaction skills and proficiencies; needs resulting from a child’s unusual responses to sensory experiences; needs resulting from a change in routines; needs resulting from engagements in repetitive and stereotypical movements; behavioral needs; and any other needs resulting from the child’s autism that impact the child’s progress in the general curriculum including social and emotional development. H. 1123 gives teeth to parents developing an IEP for a child on the autism spectrum to help ensure that the IEP team not only considers, but also fully addresses the specified needs resulting from ASD. The bill creates a clear legal obligation on the TEAM to address how autism impacts the child’s educational experience. Thus, it will no longer be up to an individual parent or teacher to have to try and convince the team to address each of the complex communication, sensory, social and other listed needs that are known to result from having a disability on the autism spectrum. Of course the Team will still have to determine how to address a particular child’s unique needs, but the Team must affirmatively address each of the child’s unique needs in all of the specified areas. Creating this clear affirmative obligation has great legal import. (Note: These new protections for children with ASD are similar to the protections in federal law for children who are blind/visually impaired or deaf/hard of hearing, requiring IEP Teams to consider special factors.) Granted, some parents may find that all of these areas are addressed in IEP meetings already. This of course may be true for some children, but we know it is not true for all. Others of you may feel frustrated from your experience where school districts do not comply with protections that are written into current laws. We know compliance with laws as they are written is a very real frustration. This law will help to ensure children receive equal educational opportunities, but we must be vigilant to be sure this new law is implemented and enforced in a manner which fulfills the intent–to provide safeguards and help ensure that IEPs fully address the complex learning needs that are known to result from autism spectrum disorder.

Massachusetts Governor Signs Health Bill, With Vetoes

04/13/2006

Eagle Tribune

BOSTON – Gov. Mitt Romney signed into law yesterday a landmark health care bill designed to insure nearly all Massachusetts residents and set a national standard for other states to follow.Even as he signed the bill, surrounded by state and congressional leaders at a ceremony steeped in fanfare at Boston’s historic Faneuil Hall, Romney faced criticism for his decision to veto a key portion of the bill requiring all businesses that do not provide health insurance to pay a $295 annual fee.

The law, intended to require coverage for nearly all of Massachusetts’ estimated 550,000 uninsured, has thrust the state to the forefront of the national debate about how to provide near-universal health care coverage without creating a single government-controlled system.

It’s also a political coup for Romney as he weighs a potential run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. The law could be a centerpiece of that campaign if Romney can credibly claim spearheading a groundbreaking health care reform package.

Romney called the legislation a big step forward in health care reform.

“The reason this is so landmark is that we have found a way, collectively, to get all of our citizens insurance without some new government-mandated takeover or a huge new tax program,” he said. “Instead the money we’re spending on uncompensated care is going to be able to help people get insured and get the subsidy they need to buy that insurance they can afford.”

The many speakers at the ticket-only event attended by more than 300 people were quick to congratulate each other on the bipartisan effort. Romney and Democratic U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy shared the same Faneuil Hall stage for the first time since Romney’s failed effort to unseat him in 1994.

“With the signing of this landmark health reform bill, after so many years of false starts, our actions have finally matched our words and we have lived up to our ideals,” Kennedy said. “You have given Massachusetts just what the doctor ordered.”

Besides the $295 per-employee fee, the law provides subsidies and sliding-scale premiums to get poor and low-income residents into health plans. Those deemed able to afford insurance but who still refuse would face increasing tax penalties.

An ABC News-Washington Post poll of more than 1,000 adults nationwide released yesterday found 55 percent of Americans would support a health care law similar to the Massachusetts model in their own states, with 41 percent opposed. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Romney used his line-item veto power to strike eight portions of the bill, most significant the $295 fee. Administration officials say the fee could actually discourage registration for the new health program, since some employers might consider it cheaper to pay the fee than insure workers. Romney, in his veto, said it was not necessary to implement or finance the reform.

Leaders of the heavily Democratic House and Senate have said they would override any changes proposed by the governor.

House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi called the vetoes disingenuous, saying the law was crafted with concessions and compromise.

“To change anything will disturb the delicate balance that made this law possible,” DiMasi said. “Each and every element of this law is critical to accomplishing our intentions and goals.”

DiMasi said he wasn’t sure if the governor was issuing the vetoes “for purposes of making the bill work or making him look good politically.”

Business and hospital leaders also criticized the veto of the fee.

Massachusetts Hospital Association President Ron Hollander said the veto threatened the balance of the bill.

“I think it is important that all the parts and all the parties stay together,” he said. “The employer assessment is critical.”

Michael Widmer, president of the business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, called the $295 assessment “a fair compromise that reflected the fact that one group of employers were subsidizing the free care costs of another group.”

Romney, speaking to reporters after the event, defended his actions.

“There are many businesses who have been flooding my office with calls as well as business associations, that are very concerned about it,” he said. “I made it very clear to both the House and Senate that I didn’t believe the $295 made sense.”

The Rev. Hurmon Hamilton of the Roxbury Presbyterian Church said there are still big questions left unanswered by the bill. He said the one sour note in the hoopla-drenched event was the lack of poor people invited to the historic hall for the signing.

“What was missing from the picture was poor people and people of color, the diversity of the folks who ultimately will be affected and impacted significantly by the bill,” he said.

Besides the $295 per-employee fee, the law, which requires everyone in Massachusetts be insured by July 2007, provides subsidies and sliding-scale premiums to get poor and low-income residents into health plans. Those deemed able to afford insurance but who still refuse will face increasing tax penalties.

The first year, they will lose their ability to claim a personal exemption on their state tax returns. That would cost an individual about $189 and a couple filing jointly about $378.

The second year they will be assessed half the annual cost of one of the new low-cost health plans that are supposed to be created by private insurers under the bill – a fine that would easily top $1,000.

The plan is already drawing criticism from some who say the requirement that everyone have insurance, known as an “individual mandate,” is an unacceptable expansion of government power. Some small business owners have also blasted the $295 fee, saying it could force them to fire workers or make it harder for them to expand.

The legislation also fails to flesh out some of the grittier details of the plan, including just how inexpensive the new low-cost health plans envisioned by the legislation will be.

The cost of the health care package was put at $316 million in the first year, rising to more than $1 billion in the third year, with much of that money coming from federal reimbursements and existing state spending, officials said.

About $125 million in new money will come from the state’s general fund each of the three years. The $295 per-employee assessment would have brought in a maximum of $45 million a year.

Massachusetts Governor Signs Health Bill, With Vetoes

Published: 04/13/2006

Massachusetts governor signs health bill, with vetoes

Eagle Tribune

BOSTON – Gov. Mitt Romney signed into law yesterday a landmark health care bill designed to insure nearly all Massachusetts residents and set a national standard for other states to follow.Even as he signed the bill, surrounded by state and congressional leaders at a ceremony steeped in fanfare at Boston’s historic Faneuil Hall, Romney faced criticism for his decision to veto a key portion of the bill requiring all businesses that do not provide health insurance to pay a $295 annual fee.

The law, intended to require coverage for nearly all of Massachusetts’ estimated 550,000 uninsured, has thrust the state to the forefront of the national debate about how to provide near-universal health care coverage without creating a single government-controlled system.

It’s also a political coup for Romney as he weighs a potential run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. The law could be a centerpiece of that campaign if Romney can credibly claim spearheading a groundbreaking health care reform package.

Romney called the legislation a big step forward in health care reform.

“The reason this is so landmark is that we have found a way, collectively, to get all of our citizens insurance without some new government-mandated takeover or a huge new tax program,” he said. “Instead the money we’re spending on uncompensated care is going to be able to help people get insured and get the subsidy they need to buy that insurance they can afford.”

The many speakers at the ticket-only event attended by more than 300 people were quick to congratulate each other on the bipartisan effort. Romney and Democratic U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy shared the same Faneuil Hall stage for the first time since Romney’s failed effort to unseat him in 1994.

“With the signing of this landmark health reform bill, after so many years of false starts, our actions have finally matched our words and we have lived up to our ideals,” Kennedy said. “You have given Massachusetts just what the doctor ordered.”

Besides the $295 per-employee fee, the law provides subsidies and sliding-scale premiums to get poor and low-income residents into health plans. Those deemed able to afford insurance but who still refuse would face increasing tax penalties.

An ABC News-Washington Post poll of more than 1,000 adults nationwide released yesterday found 55 percent of Americans would support a health care law similar to the Massachusetts model in their own states, with 41 percent opposed. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Romney used his line-item veto power to strike eight portions of the bill, most significant the $295 fee. Administration officials say the fee could actually discourage registration for the new health program, since some employers might consider it cheaper to pay the fee than insure workers. Romney, in his veto, said it was not necessary to implement or finance the reform.

Leaders of the heavily Democratic House and Senate have said they would override any changes proposed by the governor.

House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi called the vetoes disingenuous, saying the law was crafted with concessions and compromise.

“To change anything will disturb the delicate balance that made this law possible,” DiMasi said. “Each and every element of this law is critical to accomplishing our intentions and goals.”

DiMasi said he wasn’t sure if the governor was issuing the vetoes “for purposes of making the bill work or making him look good politically.”

Business and hospital leaders also criticized the veto of the fee.

Massachusetts Hospital Association President Ron Hollander said the veto threatened the balance of the bill.

“I think it is important that all the parts and all the parties stay together,” he said. “The employer assessment is critical.”

Michael Widmer, president of the business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, called the $295 assessment “a fair compromise that reflected the fact that one group of employers were subsidizing the free care costs of another group.”

Romney, speaking to reporters after the event, defended his actions.

“There are many businesses who have been flooding my office with calls as well as business associations, that are very concerned about it,” he said. “I made it very clear to both the House and Senate that I didn’t believe the $295 made sense.”

The Rev. Hurmon Hamilton of the Roxbury Presbyterian Church said there are still big questions left unanswered by the bill. He said the one sour note in the hoopla-drenched event was the lack of poor people invited to the historic hall for the signing.

“What was missing from the picture was poor people and people of color, the diversity of the folks who ultimately will be affected and impacted significantly by the bill,” he said.

Besides the $295 per-employee fee, the law, which requires everyone in Massachusetts be insured by July 2007, provides subsidies and sliding-scale premiums to get poor and low-income residents into health plans. Those deemed able to afford insurance but who still refuse will face increasing tax penalties.

The first year, they will lose their ability to claim a personal exemption on their state tax returns. That would cost an individual about $189 and a couple filing jointly about $378.

The second year they will be assessed half the annual cost of one of the new low-cost health plans that are supposed to be created by private insurers under the bill – a fine that would easily top $1,000.

The plan is already drawing criticism from some who say the requirement that everyone have insurance, known as an “individual mandate,” is an unacceptable expansion of government power. Some small business owners have also blasted the $295 fee, saying it could force them to fire workers or make it harder for them to expand.

The legislation also fails to flesh out some of the grittier details of the plan, including just how inexpensive the new low-cost health plans envisioned by the legislation will be.

The cost of the health care package was put at $316 million in the first year, rising to more than $1 billion in the third year, with much of that money coming from federal reimbursements and existing state spending, officials said.

About $125 million in new money will come from the state’s general fund each of the three years. The $295 per-employee assessment would have brought in a maximum of $45 million a year.

Signing of Autism Bill

Representative Barbara L’Italien (D-Andover) today announced the signing of House 1123 – An Act to Address the Special Education Needs of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. The L’Italien sponsored bill was passed by the House of Representatives and Senate in late March and signed by the Governor on April 7^th becoming Chapter 57 of the Acts of 2006.

This bill ensures that IEP Teams for children diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder consider and address the complex communication, behavioral, social, emotional, sensory, and other academic needs that are know to be associated with autism. The bill specifically requires IEP Teams to consider the following areas for children with ASD:

• Verbal and non-verbal communication needs;
• The need to develop social interaction skills and proficiencies;
• Unusual responses to sensory experiences;
• The needs resulting from the child’s resistance to environmental and routine changes;
• The needs resulting from the child’s engagement in repetitive activities and stereotypical movements;
• The need for behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports; and
• Other needs that result from ASD that impact the child’s progress in the regular education curriculum.

Autism is the most widely diagnosed developmental disability in the nation, affecting 1 in 166 children, a ten-fold increase over the past 20 years. It is more common than the sum of all childhood cancers, muscular dystrophy, juvenile diabetes and cystic fibrosis combined. Every day, 66 children are diagnosed with autism…nearly 3 per hour.

Some local lawmakers say slots a loser for Merrimack Valley

Published: 04/05/2006

Some local lawmakers say slots a loser for Merrimack Valley
By Edward Mason, Staff writer
Eagle-Tribune

BOSTON – A proposal to allow slot machines at four Massachusetts racetracks would hurt rather than help border communities and reduce aid to cities and towns, some area lawmakers and business leaders said yesterday.

House lawmakers are scheduled today to vote on the plan, passed in October by the Senate, which would allow slot machines at Suffolk Downs, Wonderland Greyhound Park, Raynham Park, and Plainridge Racecourse.

If approved, Massachusetts would join 11 other states that allow slots at horse or dog tracks, according to the American Gaming Association.

Some North of Boston lawmakers say legalizing slots here will spur New Hampshire to broadly expand its own gaming laws, affecting Merrimack Valley communities along the border.

Rep. Michael Costello, D-Newburyport, said he’s convinced New Hampshire will follow Massachusetts if slots are approved here.

“You’ll see slots at Seabrook Greyhound Park and at Salem at Rockingham Park,” Costello said.

Slots could pave the way for casino gambling, said Rep. Barbara A. L’Italien, D-Andover. Earlier this month, the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe received federal recognition, a first step to being allowed to open a casino in Massachusetts. L’Italien predicted New Hampshire would counter with its own casino along the border, which would attract Merrimack Valley residents.

“For our area, it would end up having people driving across the border to casinos there,” L’Italien said.

Restaurants are among the businesses that could see a loss of revenue, according to Peter Christie, president and CEO of the Massachusetts Restaurant Association. He said restaurants depend on disposable income, which would dip if spent on slots and casinos.

Michael Difeo said his business, Mr. Mike’s in Haverhill, would be affected.

“It would hurt considerably,” Difeo said.

Mr. Mike’s restaurant is also Massachusetts’ 10th busiest seller of Lottery tickets and keno. The border towns of Merrimack Valley have five of the state’s top 10 Lottery agents, in part because of all the traffic from New Hampshire.

New Hampshire gaming, Difeo said, would entice Merrimack Valley residents to go north rather than to slots and casinos farther away.

“Why drive two hours when you can play in your neighborhood,” Difeo said.

A drop in Lottery sales is a big argument against expanding gaming in Massachusetts.

The Lottery returned $736 million to cities and towns in fiscal 2005. Costello, who as of yesterday was leaning against voting for slots, echoed many area lawmakers who said it was their main concern.

Slots supporters are looking to steer a portion of the new slots revenue to local aid. But Rep. Brian S. Dempsey, D-Haverhill, also said he thinks increased gaming here and in New Hampshire could reduce spending on the Lottery and reduce money available for local aid.

“My primary concern is the erosion of the Lottery,” Dempsey said. “If you factor that into it, the numbers may not be what they appear.”

The racetracks and the AFL-CIO of Massachusetts, primary supporters of the legislation, argue it would save thousands of jobs in the troubled racing industry and steer new tax dollars to cities and towns. Gaming supporters here argue that Massachusetts gaming tax revenue could reach $500 million a year.

The bill’s opponents – such as the Massachusetts Restaurant Association and Citizens for Limited Taxation – question the economic assumptions. Greyhound advocates oppose helping the dog racing industry, while the Catholic Church opposes expanded gambling on moral grounds.

The Senate approved the gaming bill in October. House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi only recently agreed to put the measure to a vote, which House lawmakers said they believe will be close. There are questions about whether House supporters have the votes to override an expected veto by Gov. Mitt Romney.

Rep. Bradley H. Jones Jr., a gaming supporter, said Massachusetts should adopt slots because the money is already being spent on gambling in other states. This is a way for Massachusetts to capture that money for itself and cities and towns.

“It’s an opportunity to get back some of the money we see go overboard into Connecticut and Rhode Island,” said Jones, a North Reading Republican.

Massachusetts residents gambled $1.1 billion out of state in 2005, according to a recent study by the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. Connecticut was a major beneficiary.

The study by the Center for Policy Analysis said Bay State residents gambled nearly $890 million alone at Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun casinos, resulting in $123 million in new tax revenue for Connecticut.

Outside the Statehouse yesterday, animal rights and anti-gambling groups stressed the effects of gambling on families.

Holding signs and clutching the leashes of several greyhounds who used to race, opponents called dog racing cruel and said any expansion of gambling that would bring more people to the tracks should be opposed. They also said gambling hurts the poor.

“Every dollar thrown into a slot machine is a dollar not available to pay for food, clothes, rent education or health care,” said Laura Everett, associate director of the Massachusetts Council of Churches.

Don’t Believe the Slot Machine Hype

Published: 04/02/2006

Eagle Tribune Op-Ed

Don’t believe the slot machine hype

Barbara A. L’Italien

The next time a politician or an editorial writer says that legalizing slot machines is a good idea ask him (or her) three questions:

1. Have you done any fact-checking on the press releases generated by the gambling industry?

2. Have you actually played a 21st-century slot machine, the kind that will be installed here in Massachusetts?

3. Will you be one of the people spending over $5,000 a year at the slot machines, the amount needed to be spent to reach the profit numbers gambling promoters predict?

The reality is very few state leaders and news outlets have done any fact-checking during the slots debate. They merely repeat over and over the talking points from the gambling industry’s press releases that hype slots and the wonders they will provide. “Slot machines will stop global warming” one headline might declare. “Casino executives said today slots are the only answer to the looming global warming crisis. ‘The more money people spend on slot machines, the less money they’ll have to fill their gas tank, which means they’ll be driving less, reducing the amount of deadly carbon emissions being released into the environment.’” It’s hyperbole – but not by much.

Beyond doing little fact-checking, very few of these state leaders and media types have even played a high-tech slot machine, the kind they support making legal. These new machines are computer engineered to give the player a sense that they “almost” won, creating a rush of excitement which leads the player to feed more money in the machine at a faster and faster pace. That’s why public health leaders describe slots as the most highly addictive gambling product ever invented.

And while almost none of these slot machine cheerleaders have actually played a new slot, you can be certain that they also won’t be spending any of their own personal money in the machines if they are legalized.

In the last 25 years, no important state issue has received less media scrutiny than the issue of legalizing slot machines in Massachusetts. It’s time that changed.

There are several key facts that should be splashed across the front page of every newspaper in the state. Here are two of the most important:

* Fact: The amount of jobs claimed by the racetrack industry is greatly exaggerated and the jobs that are real will not be saved by legalizing slots.

Not one news outlet has dug below the surface to confirm the outrageous number of jobs claimed by the racetrack industry. Suffolk Downs, for example, counts over 800 racehorse owners as “employees.” But even more shockingly, a review of Massachusetts Racing Commission records shows that over half of these “employees” live out of state. That means at least one out of every five jobs Suffolk claims it needs to “save” with slots is held by an out-of-stater, and that’s to say nothing about where any of the other track employees reside.

The very idea that slot machines will “save” the racetracks is totally false. The head of none other than Churchill Downs himself declared that slots are not a long-term solution to saving the jobs of racetrack workers. Why hasn’t the media told the public this story?

* Fact: A vote to legalize slots at the racetracks is a vote to legalize casinos in Massachusetts without any local community control.

Federal law requires any recognized Indian tribe be permitted access to whatever form of gambling is legal in a state. Slots are defined as Class III gambling, as are table games like blackjack. This allows tribes to build casinos, with little state control and no accountability to local zoning or environmental laws. The racetrack industry’s press releases omit this fact, and the media has done very little to educate the public on the massive impacts of Indian casinos.

So why have state leaders and media done so poorly investigating the issue of legalizing slots?

In large part it’s because many of these leaders and media figures don’t play slot machines nor do they really know people who spend a lot of money on gambling. They are part of the elite. Many can’t relate to the notion of what the financial and social impacts would mean to everyday people to have slot machines in our communities.

It’s not meant as a criticism. Rather it affirms what is true for all of us – that how we think and act is based much upon our own life experience. If you don’t have experience playing the new slot machines or don’t know people who spend a large portion of their income on gambling, it becomes very hard to relate to what’s at stake.

Slot machines will not end global warming. Nor will they save the racetracks or be a cash cow for state government. But it’s well past time for the media and government leaders at all levels to give this issue the intense review it deserves.

State Rep. Barbara A. L’Italien, D-Andover, represents the 18th Essex District