Our oldest son was diagnosed at 4 1/2 as a high-functioning autistic. We were told that if we provided appropriate, medically necessary therapies--speech and occupational therapy, to develop David's motor skills, ability to handle complex speech and ability to correctly read basic social cues--his autism would no longer impede his chances of having a rewarding, fulfilling and generally "normal" life as a teenager and an adult. David is very bright, with a lot of talents, and we had always dreamed of being able to send him to college. My husband makes a good enough living so that I could stay home and take care of our son, taking him to therapy sessions and working with him at home as well. We did all this so that he could have a viable future.

Unfortunately, our health insurance plan declined to cover any of David's therapy expenses. We paid nearly two thousand dollars a month for OT and speech therapy, until we could no longer sustain the strain on our budget and had to cut down the OT David received. The stated reason for refusal to cover these theraputic expenses? OT and speech therapy for autistics are classified by the health-insurance industry as "educational" rather than "medical," and therefore as unnecessary frills. We were fortunate enough to be able to afford these extraordinary expenses for a time, but at the price of the very future we were preparing him for; because we had to spend rather than save all that money, we now have serious doubts about our ability to provide David with a college education. Had the health insurance industry covered even half the therapy costs we've shouldered, we could afford college for our son--as it is, he may be consigned to a future of subsistence-level employment and wasted potential, because coverage for medically necessary therapies was denied him on specious grounds. Where is the sense or the decency in that?