Musings on the Funding of Stuttering Treatment

shutterstock_186528332

Editor’s Note: This post is another viewpoint on Speech Pathology Australia’s recent proposal and does not necessarily reflect the views or position of ASHA. 

Volunteer firefighters are not presently supported by government funding; instead they rely on local fundraising and private donations. Everyone values their work, and all agree that firefighters should be compensated.

The professional association for volunteer firefighters proposes to the government that payment be provided for their services. Due to demands on legislators’ time and attention, the association selects one method for putting out fires – water – and suggests that firefighters should be compensated when they use water to put out fires.

Many firefighters ask, “What do we do when water is not the best way to fight a particular fire?” They point out that other methods for fighting fires have been shown to work just as well as water. They are told that water has more data, and they don’t want to confuse the legislators with multiple options.

Some firefighters express concern that their input was not solicited before the proposal was submitted. They further worry that their options will be limited by such legislation. The association says, “You will not be limited in what you do—only in what you get paid for.” The firefighters ask, “Will we get paid if we use another method?” The answer: “You don’t get paid for anything now, so this will definitely be better.”

The firefighters persist, “Why not seek payment for the service of putting out fires, rather than a particular method?” The association says, “When other methods have as much data as water, we can consider approaching the legislators again, telling them that the issue was not as straightforward as we first suggested. We can ask then them to consider other methods…That would be simpler.”

The firefighters collect numerous comments from specialty firefighters and support organizations in opposition to the proposal. Despite the grass-roots opposition, the proposal proceeds as originally written and is accepted. Volunteer firefighters start to receive government payment for one approach to fighting fires. Those who favor that approach are delighted. Others weren’t being paid before anyway, so nothing changes for them, at least not at first.

Soon, homeowners start to call the fire department to ask, “Does your department use water? I heard that you get paid for water. I want you to get paid, but I don’t want to pay myself. Plus, I read on a professional association’s website that water is ‘best!’” Thus, market forces drive firefighters to use water exclusively, although many know that there are other helpful approaches.

One day, a water-using firefighter finds himself working a fire against which water does not appear to help. He wonders if he should use some other approach in conjunction with—or instead of—water. Other firefighters have long used the method of changing the draft pattern in the house, but that method is not approved for payment. If he does it, his services will no longer be covered. He hesitates.

What is better for the homeowner? For the firefighter? Should he do what he knows is right for the house or what he gets paid for?

Ultimately, he decides that he should only respond to fires that can be put out with water. Other firefighters can deal with more complicated fires. It’s up to them if they don’t want to get paid?

Why has the firefighter been put in this ethical dilemma?

It all could have been avoided if only the professional association had pursued coverage for the service of fighting fires, not the specific treatment that they favored.

But that would evidently have been too complicated…

 

J. Scott Yaruss, PhD, CCC-SLP, is an affiliate of ASHA Special Interest Group 4, Fluency and Fluency Disorders. He is also associate professor and director of graduate programs in speech-language pathology at the University of Pittsburgh, coordinator of clinical research in audiology and speech-language pathology at Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, and director of the Stuttering Center of Western Pennsylvania. He can be reached at jsyaruss@pitt.edu.

Call for Advocacy to Garner Government Support for Evidence-Based Treatments

shutterstock_254680267

Editor’s Note: This post is another viewpoint on the Speech Pathology Australia’s recent proposal and does not necessarily reflect the views or position of ASHA. 

Evidence-based practice encompasses evidence from high-level research, expert opinion, patient needs and values, along with the context within which the treatment is conducted. In the field of stuttering, we are fortunate to have strong evidence that the Lidcombe Program is effective. If we have clear evidence that a treatment approach works, it should be made available to the people who need it.

Speech Pathology Australia has made a submission to our [Australia’s] federal government to fund stuttering treatment. I’m sure it will be the first of many submissions, which aim to bridge the evidence-practice gap. However, there appears to have been a misunderstanding about the announcement, so SPA published a clarification on its website stating that “SPA’s submission relates only to the formation of the 2015-2016 federal budget. SPA is not supporting legislation or a policy change to promote one program, service or form of treatment over any other.”

As a founder of the speechBITE evidence-based practice website, I thought long and hard about the effect EBP has on clinical practice, funding sources and, most importantly, the clinical outcomes of the people we serve. There are three key aspects to making EBP a central component of clinical decision-making:

  • Firstly, clinicians need to know about the latest treatment advances.
  • Secondly, patients and clients need to be informed about current best practice options, and be satisfied with their treatment decision.
  • Thirdly, funding agencies need to be confident that they are funding treatments that are based on strong evidence.

How can funding agencies be aware of current best practice and confident in their funding decisions? As a profession we need to be proactive by giving this information to funding agencies and lobbying the government. This is precisely what SPA is doing with its proposal. I applaud SPA for taking this step and promoting evidence-based speech pathology practice at the highest level.

 

Leanne Togher, PhD, SLP, is a professor of communication disorders following traumatic brain injury at The University of Sydney and is Senior National Health and Medical Research Council Fellow of Australia. Togher is the director of the speechBITE evidence-based practice website. She is also an international affiliate of ASHA and Fellow of Speech Pathology Australia. She can be reached at Leanne.togher@sydney.edu.au.

Another View on Speech Pathology Australia’s Stuttering Treatment Proposal

shutterstock_191501849

Editor’s Note: This post is a follow-up to yesterday’s post from Craig Coleman regarding a controversial proposal on stuttering treatment and reimbursement from Speech Pathology Australia. We reached out for responses from Ann Packman and Mark Onlsow, two of the originators of the Lidcombe approach to stuttering treatment—on which the SPA proposal centers. We also reached out to SPA and include a statement here from SPA President Deborah Theodoros.

Response from Ann Packman and Mark Onslow:

During the past two decades the Australian government has invested millions of dollars in research funding to develop an evidence-based treatment for early stuttering. The Lidcombe Program is a result of this funding and is now supported by strong evidence from randomized controlled trials. Those randomized trials include evidence for face-to-face treatment, for treatment using webcam, and for group treatment. The Speech Pathology Australia proposal is for our government to further invest in the health of Australian children who stutter, but in a more direct way by contributing to the cost of their treatment.

We wish to clarify that the Speech Pathology Australia proposal is not for a mandate—a directive—that Australian speech pathologists must use the Lidcombe Program to treat preschool children who stutter. Nor is it a proposal to overturn customary evidence-based reasoning and standardize how Australian preschoolers who stutter in Australia are managed. Nor is there any suggestion that the Australian government would not in the future fund any other evidence-based intervention that is supported by randomized controlled trials. Indeed, if such evidence emerges for the efficacy of another treatment for early stuttering, we would encourage Speech Pathology Australia to approach the Australian government to consider it also for taxpayer-assisted support.

 

Message from Deborah Theodoros, president, SPA:

Speech Pathology Australia is advocating for public funding (Medicare) rebates for early stuttering intervention at a level which is demonstrated to be highly efficacious and supported by the strongest level of evidence. However, SPA is not suggesting any policy or legislation which would restrict interventions to one program over another or would require a speech pathologist to use a specific treatment, intervention or service. SPA continues to strongly support the principle of practice that speech pathologists remain free, and duty-bound, to exercise their clinical decision-making in relation to the interventions they provide to clients.

 

Ann Packman, PhD, SLP, is associate professor and senior research officer for the Australian Stuttering Research Centre, The University of Sydney. She has more than 30 years’ experience in the area of stuttering as a clinician, teacher and researcher and researches nature and treatment of stuttering. Packman recently served as associate editor for fluency for the American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and is associate editor for fluency for Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. Packman is an international affiliate of ASHA. She can be reached at ann.packman@sydney.edu.au.

Mark Onslow, PhD, SLP, is the foundation director of the Australian Stuttering Research Centre, The University of Sydney. He was a principal research fellow of the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Onslow’s research interests are the epidemiology of early stuttering in preschoolers, mental health of those who stutter, measurement of stuttering, and the nature and treatment of stuttering. He is a member of the international Lidcombe Program Trainers Consortium. Onslow is an international affiliate of ASHA. He can be reached at mark.onslow@sydney.edu.au.

Deborah Theodoros, PhD, SLP, national president of Speech Pathology Australia, is also professor and head of the division of speech pathology in the University of Queensland’s School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences. She is a founder and co-director of the multidisciplinary Telerehabilitation Research Unit in the school and past chair of the Telerehabilitation Special Interest Group of the American Telemedicine Association. She can be reached at president@speechpathologyaustralia.org.au.

 

 

A Controversial Proposal on Stuttering Treatment from Speech Pathology of Australia: What It Means and What Happens Next

shutterstock_204038680

Editor’s note: This blog post was submitted by ASHA member Craig Coleman and does not necessarily reflect the views or position of ASHA. Here is the original release from Speech Pathology Australia that spurred Coleman to submit this post. It was published in the February 2015 issue of SPA’s publication Speak Out:

Speech Pathology Australia recently submitted a proposal to the Australian Government Department of Treasury for the federal budget 2015-2016. Given the difficult political and budgetary climate, and in anticipation of a government response to the recommendations made from the Senate inquiry—the budget proposal focused on a single budget initiative.

We argue that Medicare should be targeted towards health interventions that are evidence-based, effective, safe and minimise future health treatment needs. Our proposal focused on an internationally recognised intervention, developed in Australia and based on the most robust scientific evidence of effectiveness—the Lidcombe Program—to treat stuttering in young Australian children.

Tomorrow, we will run a post on this proposal from two of the originators of the Lidcombe approach, Mark Onslow and Ann Packman, along with a statement from the president of SPA, Deborah Theodoros. We encourage your comments on this issue, which you can post below this post from Coleman.

 

Recently, Speech Pathology Australia (the national speech-language pathology association of Australia) submitted a proposal to the Australian Government Department of Treasury that would require Medicare rebates be made available for children who stutter, but only if they are treated using the Lidcombe Program.

I feel this action gravely limits the scope of treatment for stuttering. Many interventions for preschool stuttering have shown to be effective. What happens when a child receives treatment with the Lidcombe program and doesn’t make progress? Does the child have other treatment options? From this proposal, it would appear that is not the case.

How are new (and perhaps more effective) treatment approaches expected to emerge when only treatment with an existing evidence-base is funded? Imagine if all infections were still treated using penicillin because it was an early treatment option. Would the government and medical associations support such a position? Perhaps a clearer question is would pharmaceutical industry lobbyists allow legislators to even remotely consider the idea? Do we think less of ourselves as a profession to allow this to happen?

This proposal also highlights a concerning trend of what constitutes “evidence.” While certain treatments might have more data than others it doesn’t always mean that treatment is more effective. Evidence-based practice includes current scientific evidence, clinician experience and client /family values. What if the clinician is not properly trained in the treatment approach? What if the personality of the client, family or clinician is not a good fit for one particular approach? Surely, the best “evidence” comes not from group data, but the individualized outcome of each client we serve. While group data certainly present scientific evidence, individual outcomes present actual evidence-based practice. That type of data takes into account all aspects of the evidence-based practice triangle.

After this precedent has been established, we would be naïve to think this could not happen with other disorders in all parts of the world. This is not an issue for the stuttering community of Australia to deal with. It is an issue for the speech-language-hearing community of the world to deal with.

So, where do we go from here? Here is a potential plan I would like to suggest:

  1. Advocate for reimbursement for stuttering. The state of reimbursement for stuttering treatment in the United States can best be described as dire. One of our missions as SLPs should be to work with insurance providers and demand that they pay for stuttering treatment. Somewhere along the way, we have allowed insurance companies to dictate that stuttering treatment should not be reimbursed. We must reverse that trend.
  2. Create a consortium of professionals. This would allow a database of treatment outcomes to be collected from clinicians in the field. Not only would this help with reimbursement, but it would also allow publication of data collected from individualized treatment approaches. We are professionals, not technicians. Our clients deserve better than “follow-the-manual” based programs and protocols.
  3. We need to educate our professionals and the public about stuttering. Stuttering is not merely a disruption in the flow of speech. It is much more than that.

As concerning as this proposal is, it can be a positive if we choose to act with reason, courage and passion.

In order to provide both sides of the discussion, I am including a recent statement from Speech Pathology Australia. While this statement seeks to clarify that this is not an endorsement of one approach, advocating for reimbursement for only one approach certainly seems to send the opposite message. Many insurance companies will not pay for stuttering treatment here in the United States. But responding to that by supporting a policy that would cover only one approach would be very dangerous and erroneous.

It is also important to understand that once Medicare programs establish a policy, private payers soon follow suit. It’s very naive to believe this policy won’t have major negative ramifications in the long run. While it may benefit some children in the short term, there is no doubt in my mind it will not benefit people who stutter or our profession in the long term.

You can read Coleman’s original blog post in full here.

 

Craig E. Coleman, MA, CCC-SLP, is an assistant professor at Marshall University and a board-certified specialist in fluency disorders. Coleman is also an adjunct instructor at Indiana University of Pennsylvania and co-director of the Stuttering U. summer program for children who stutter, their families and SLPs. He is coordinator of ASHA Special Interest Group 4, Fluency and Fluency Disorders. He can be reached at craig.coleman@marshall.edu

New Global Campaign Takes on Noisy Leisure Activities

MLSimage

Worldwide, the statistics are sobering:

  • 360 million people have disabling hearing loss.
  • 43 million people between the ages of 12–35 years live with disabling hearing loss.
  • Half of all cases of hearing loss are avoidable through primary prevention.

Of course, none of this likely comes as a surprise to ASHA members, particularly audiologists, who are on the front lines of care for people with hearing loss. The good news is that we are going to hear a lot more about this serious health issue with the help of a high-profile group.

Today, on International Ear Care Day, the World Health Organization is elevating the profile of hearing loss—specifically noise-induced hearing loss—by launching a new campaign called Make Listening Safe.

The campaign educates the public about hearing dangers posed by noisy leisure activities and promotes simple prevention strategies. Young people are the focus because an increasing number are experiencing hearing loss. As the creator of the highly successful Listen to Your Buds campaign, WHO asked ASHA experts to advise on Make Listening Safe. A role the association enthusiastically embraced.

MLSlogo

ASHA used Listen to Your Buds to provide an early warning on potential hearing dangers from misuse of personal music players and the need for safe listening. Today, as this technology is nearly ubiquitous, the campaign is going strong on a variety of fronts.

One of ASHA’s most successful ventures is its safe listening concert series. The series educates young children about protecting their ears in a fun, interactive way by bringing innovative musicians and performances to U.S. schools. A new video showcases the most recent concert series, which took place in six Orlando-area schools in conjunction with ASHA’s 2014 convention.

Misuse of personal audio devices is also a key area of focus for Make Listening Safe. According to WHO, among teenagers and young adults aged 12 to 35 years in middle- and high-income countries, nearly 50 percent are exposed to unsafe levels of sound from the use of these devices.

This is one of the new global estimates being released with the launch of Make Listening Safe. In addition to a high-profile unveiling in Geneva, WHO is issuing a variety of materials featuring statistics on the problem’s scope, the hearing loss consequences and action steps that parents, teachers, physicians, managers of noisy venues, manufacturers and governments can take to make listening leisure activities safer.

ASHA asks members to take up the campaign. Here are just a few ideas on how you can get involved:

  • Utilize the WHO’s eye-catching public education materials—including posters, a fact sheet, and an infographic—with peers, patients, friends and loved ones.
  • Engage in grassroots public education, such as sharing statistics and prevention tips on social media or holding a free hearing screening.
  • Approach local media to pitch a story. The campaign’s launch with accompanying statistics is a great news hook. You can tie the story to your local community by highlighting an event your practice is hosting or offer tips for safe listening at local noisy venues (e.g., stadiums, concert venues/clubs). This is also an excellent consumer health story for a television station, particularly because it offers “news you can use” such as easy prevention tips.

The focus on noise-induced hearing loss in young people is not limited to March. While the WHO campaign will be ongoing, ASHA will also poll the public about safe listening practices. Our results will provide more opportunity for outreach during Better Hearing & Speech Month in May and beyond. Stay tuned!

Click here for more information. Questions may be directed to pr@asha.org.

 

Judith L. Page, PhD, CCC-SLP, is ASHA’s new president. She served as program director for Communication Sciences and Disorders at the University of Kentucky for 17 years and as chair of the Department of Rehabilitation Sciences for 10 years. 

Of Language Barriers, Culture Gaps and e-Bridges

shutterstock_234152752

It certainly isn’t news that our country is becoming increasingly diverse. What may surprise us is that some of the biggest growth is happening in non-border, less-urbanized states. California, Texas and Florida continue to have the most residents who were born in another country. However, Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, North Carolina and Tennessee all saw more than a 70% increase in foreign-born residents between 2000 and 2012.

This means that ASHA members probably find themselves with more and more English-language learners on their caseloads. These audiologists and SLPs likely also live in areas where there may not be many resources for serving ELL students. Our Code of Ethics states that we should provide culturally and linguistically appropriate services. ASHA also acknowledges that the ideal situation for ELL clients is to work with a bilingual service provider with specific language and clinical skills.

Telepractice offers an elegant solution for connecting colleagues with these competencies to our clients that need them.

The versatility of telepractice makes it useful in different settings. A school district might use several Spanish-speaking telepractitioners to manage its entire ELL caseload. A rural health clinic may create a limited agreement with a bilingual audiologist for follow-up care of a patient who communicates in a less-commonly spoken language.

Telepractice can be used for more than intervention. We can assess patients—even formally—through telepractice. Formal assessment via telepractice is getting easier because many well-known tests are now digitized. Even when a certified professional is not available through telepractice, an onsite team can use technology to connect with interpreters and cultural brokers to help provide appropriate services.

Telepractice licensing, however, remains a hurdle for taking advantage of remote services or becoming a telepractitioner. Most states don’t currently have regulations on telepractice for our professions. ASHA and local associations, however, advocate for states to formulate and adapt guidelines permitting telepractice.

In the meantime, associations advise telepractitioners to verify requirements and policies, as well as hold all appropriate credentials, both in the state where we reside and where the client receives services. This applies also to special credentialing for bilingual telepractitioners.

ASHA doesn’t certify bilingual service providers, but it provides guidelines for those who represent themselves as such. For example, we are ethically-bound to ensure that we speak or sign another language with native or near-native proficiency, and possess various clinical competencies.

To my knowledge, only Illinois and New York have a type of credential for bilingual practitioners, and these are specific to professionals working in schools. However, because policy changes frequently (and is difficult to track), SLPs and audiologists should verify any bilingual-specific requirements in states where they might practice before providing services.

Telepractice holds a lot of promise for serving clients with diverse needs. Even when there is some red tape to figure out, using technology to build bridges to communities that may not have many resources is one of my most rewarding professional experiences!

 

Nate Cornish, M.S., CCC-SLP is a bilingual (English/Spanish) SLP and clinical director for VocoVision and Bilingual Therapies.  He is the professional development manager for SIG 18: Telepractice, a member of ASHA’s Multicultural Issues Board, and a past president and vice-president of the Hispanic Caucus.  Cornish provides clinical support to monolingual and bilingual telepractitioners around the country.  He also organizes and presents at various continuing education events, including an annual symposium on bilingualism.  Contact him at nate.cornish@vocovision.com.

CSD Students Use Their Skills in Ethiopia This Month

   

The CSD program at Teachers College Columbia University is in Ethiopia this month visiting schools for students with autism and a center for adults with intellectual disabilities. The TC Team—nine master’s students and three ASHA-certified SLPs: Lisa Edmonds, Jayne Miranda and I—used our experiences in Ghana and Bolivia to prepare for the trip.

At a vocational center for adults with intellectual disabilities the TC Team created “Seller’s Market Cards,” so the adults can independently sell their products. These low-tech Augmentative and Alternative Communication cards, laminated with packing tape, introduce the seller and list products for sale with their prices. We worked with the sellers to create the cards and then immediately tried them out at an impromptu market at the center!

At the Nehemiah Autism School, 20 teachers and our team spent the day collaborating to identify ways to bring more communication opportunities into an otherwise excellent school. We made 70 flash cards for weather, a large calendar, practiced social stories, and talked about ways to introduce literacy and math.

Right now, we’re presenting a five-day cleft palate speech institute at Yekatit 12 Hospital. Smile Train and Transforming Faces supported 14 cleft palate team professionals who attended from East and West Africa.

Please follow our adventures on the blog.  We love to see comments and are just halfway through our trip.

 

Catherine J. Crowley, CCC-SLP, JD, PhD, Distinguished Senior Lecturer in speech-language pathology at Teachers College Columbia University, founded and directs the bilingual/multicultural program focus, the Bilingual Extension Institute, and the Bolivia and Ghana programs. An experienced attorney, Crowley is working with NYCDOE on a multi-year project to improve the accuracy of disability evaluations. 

Our Profession’s Biggest Open Secret

shutterstock_163265117

What’s the biggest open secret in our field? Each of us might have slightly different answers. Here’s mine: the reason so many students are blocked from receiving needed services is because their home states have not updated their Medicaid telepractice policies.

Children who qualify for Medicaid coverage, by definition, are from low-income families. My experience is that these children are disproportionately affected by the shortage of SLPs and could therefore benefit a great deal from access to treatments delivered via telepractice.

In addition, many schools, when faced with tight budgets, simply do not have the money to hire additional SLPs–telepractice or not–without Medicaid funds.

This places an unfair burden on the rural and urban schools that need telepractice the most. They struggle more than their affluent peers to find qualified SLPs. One reason is that those wealthier districts can pay substantially more for treatment delivered via telepractice if state Medicaid policies haven’t been updated to reimburse for online services.

This isn’t the most surprising part of the secret, however. That honor goes to how easily states can make the change. Consider this:

  • The federal government, which partners with each state on its Medicaid plan, has already approved billing for telepractice. That’s right, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services already has an approved billing treatment for treatment delivered via telepractice.
  • All reimbursements for telepractice are paid for entirely by the federal government. This means that states don’t pay for additional reimbursements out of pocket. Let me repeat that one more time: allowing reimbursement for telepractice increases access to services without requiring additional funds from your state’s Medicaid program.
  • For all states that PresenceLearning has researched—aside from Indiana—allowing reimbursement for telepractice is as simple as publishing a clarifying policy memo. The memo should say that online services can be billed with the same codes as traditional sessions as long as a “GT” telepractice modifier is included for tracking purposes.

It is important to keep in mind that telepractice is just a different delivery method for services already approved by CMS and reimbursed by Medicaid in schools.  SLPs provide online services using the same approaches and materials they would use if they were physically at the school site. 

What can you do to help students get the treatment they need by motivating your state to write that memo?

  • Speak to stakeholders to build a consensus. Stakeholders include: ASHA, state licensing boards, special education directors, state departments of special education and directors of child health programs for your schools.
  • Consult state-level billing agents on the best way to document services to ensure program integrity.
  • Network with colleagues using telepractice to find out which states currently approve Medicaid funding for telepractice.

There are eight states that reimburse for telepractice services. They include: Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, North Dakota, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon and Virginia. In addition, reimbursement for telepractice services are pending in California and Michigan.[Note from ASHA editors: This list was published in July 2013, so it may have changed. Our December issue focused on telepractice and has a slightly different list of states offering reimbursement.] 

Contact state speech and hearing associations or state-level Medicaid directors to find out how you can assist in getting Medicaid reimbursement for telepractice services. Let’s work together to ensure students who need our services receive them and schools receive the appropriate funding from Medicaid.

Melissa Jakubowitz M.A. CCC-SLP, vice president of clinical services at PresenceLearning, is an SLP with more than 20 years of clinical and managerial experience, Melissa is a Board Recognized Specialist in Child Language. She is a past-president of the California Speech-Language-Hearing Association and is also active in ASHA, serving as a Legislative Counselor for 12 years. Melissa began her career working in the public schools and can be reached at melissa@presencelearning.com

Be an Advocate for Your Clients

boy with santa

This summer I had an interesting experience with a major insurance provider. The company initially approved treatment for a 3-year-old client, who I evaluated and diagnosed with severe apraxia of speech. This little guy had maybe five words in his lexicon, all unintelligible to an unfamiliar listener. He could not even consistently attempt to imitate monosyllabic words. His receptive language skills were at least at age level with cognition the same.

After several months of treating him with a motor-planning and sound-sequencing approach, his parents received notification from the insurance company that his treatment was denied because “it was not medically necessary” and his apraxia was deemed “developmental.” The communications stated that my client would “outgrow” his issue in time.

I have been in private practice for almost 28 years and ardently disagree with the insurance company’s reasoning. I consulted with Janet McCarty, at ASHA headquarters, and she provided me with excellent professional advice plus solid evidence to fight for my client. I organized my information then consulted with the family to get their green light to proceed. I went all in to fight this decision with the big insurance company’s medical director.

It became a step by step process to help this medical director understand that apraxia is NOT a developmental disorder, but rather a neurologically based disorder that results in disruptions to a child’s ability to sequence the necessary motor movements to produce speech sounds. My favorite part of this story is when I asked the director how much time I had to discuss my client with him during our peer-to-peer scheduled review, he informed me that “he did not want to be lectured about apraxia because he had Googled it and saw the word ‘developmental’ tossed sporadically around the literature and that was all he needed to see to be convinced that apraxia was not a medical condition with neurological basis.”

I quickly lifted my jaw off my desk, hit my reset button and proceeded to help this “medical expert” understand more about apraxia from this expert in the field of speech and language. While our exchange made some positive impact, he still felt the need to take this case to the next level by calling in a third party pediatric neurologist. I knew that this was going to be a medical professional in my corner. The neurologist and I spoke about my client and I was able to answer specific questions about his treatment and progress. Sure enough, her recommendation was absolutely in favor of this severe speech disorder being neurologically based and treatment medically necessary. She agreed that my client would not outgrow it in time or improve through weekly sessions in small groups.

My point for sharing this story is to say that while it is often frustrating to deal with insurance companies, you have to fight for your clients. When you meet, evaluate, work with a child and their family and you know a child needs treatment, you must advocate and spend the time to fight for this child, no matter how BIG these insurance companies are or how much they try to shut you down.

I need to correct my earlier statement when I referred to my “favorite” part of the story…in fact, my favorite part of this story is that my client, who is now 3.6 years old, was approved for intensive therapy to treat his motor planning disorder. He is making remarkable progress and I am quite confident he can tell Santa what he wants in a complete sentence. Maybe with Mom’s help interpreting, but still excited and able to convey his message!

 

Lorraine Salter, MS, CCC-SLP, has been in private practice in Reading MA since 1986. She studied and earned both degrees from Emerson College in Boston, after deciding that a career in performing arts was not going to pay the bills.  She enjoys the ability to create a strong team for the children she serves through interaction with her clients’ families. You may contact her at lorraine@northshorespeechandlanguageservices.com.

June is Aphasia Awareness Month—Join the Celebration!

aphasia

June is National Aphasia Awareness Month and this year’s host group is the Big Sky Aphasia Program in Missoula, Mont.. This year’s theme is “ It’s Never Too Late To Communicate” and the National Aphasia Association (NAA) is encouraging professionals, consumers, community support groups and aphasia centers nationwide to raise public awareness about aphasia in June and has a poster and resource packet available.

Thanks to Senator Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) and Senator Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) for, once again, co-sponsoring the resolution to proclaim June as National Aphasia Awareness Month! You can find the resolution here.

This year we launched a month-long social media contest to help the public understand aphasia and how to communicate with people who have aphasia. We are proud to introduce our new social media intern, Laura Cobb, whose first assignment is serving as spokesperson for the Aphasia Awareness Month contest. Laura is 27 years old and lives in St, Louis, Mo.. In September 2008 she was a student at Washington University majoring in psychology and hoping to work in the field of autism when her car was struck by a drunk driver as she returned home from studying. Laura suffered a stroke resulting in aphasia along with other injuries including a partial hearing loss for which she wears bilateral hearing aids.With intensive speech services, Laura has been able to regain a good portion of her ability to communicate. She continues to receive speech and language treatment and continues to improve. We first met Laura when she created her own video for You Tube on “How to Talk to Someone with Aphasia.” Her video has received more than 200,000 views to date and she was interviewed for an article in the Huffington Post.

“I’m excited to work with the NAA now,” says Laura in the first of her weekly video clips discussing the NAA’s contest, which encourages people to post about aphasia on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube using the hashtag #AphasiaAwarenessMonth.  Each week, participants are tasked with a different challenge. For example, in week one, people were asked to answer the question “What is aphasia?” In week two, participants shared their tips for communicating with people with aphasia and in week three they posted pictures of themselves with the June poster. Click here to learn about this week’s challenge.

“It’s never too late to communicate. So, we want your tips. My favorite tip: speak s-l-o-w-l-y,” says Laura. At the end of each week, a winner will be selected randomly and awarded a series of aphasia-related prizes; then a new weekly challenge will be announced. At the end of the five-week contest, the top prize, an iPad Mini, will be awarded on June 27. There is no cost to participate. The more people post using #AphasiaAwarenessMonth, the more chances they have to win and the more we can raise awareness of aphasia!

But that’s not all you can do. Here are some other suggestions as to how you can celebrate National Aphasia Awareness Month in June:

  • Provide training at local hospitals, clinics, senior citizens centers, nursing homes, etc.
  • Send packets of information to doctors and other professionals and staff who work with aphasia (e.g. physical therapists, occupational therapists, social workers, nurses). Training for these groups would be very helpful in dealing with the communication difficulties.
  • Provide training workshops and support groups for family and caregivers.
  • Provide workshops for local religious groups – many of these have existing programs for helping people in the community.
  • Display posters and disseminate materials in local shopping centers, libraries and supermarkets about aphasia.
  • Set up an information table to educate employees, patients and families about aphasia.
  • Get your city/town to pass a resolution proclaiming June as National Aphasia Awareness Month- we can provide you with the template.

Remember, aphasia advocacy and increasing awareness is a year round activity so join the effort! For more information or to receive your Aphasia Awareness Month packet, contact the NAA’s Response Center at 800-922-4622 or visit the NAA website.

 

Ellayne S. Ganzfried, M.S., CCC-SLP, is a speech-language pathologist and the Executive Director of the National Aphasia Association. She is Past President of the NYS Speech Language Hearing Association (NYSSLHA), Long Island Speech Language Hearing Association (LISHA) and the Council of State Association Presidents for Speech Language Pathology and Audiology (CSAP) and remains active in these associations. Ellayne is a Fellow of the American Speech Language Hearing Association (ASHA). She was a site visitor for ASHA’s Council on Academic Accreditation (CAA) and a practitioner member of the CAA for four years. She is currently on ASHA’s Committee on Honors. Ellayne has created and managed several speech, hearing and rehabilitation programs in New York and Massachusetts. She is an adjunct instructor at Adelphi University-Garden City –NY. Ellayne has written articles and presented regionally and nationally on a variety of topics including aphasia, rehabilitation and leadership skills.