skip to main |
skip to sidebar
On Wednesday February 3, 2010, the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) - the Federal advisory committee mandated by The Combating Autism Act (CAA) of 2006 ( P.L. 109-416 – ) to coordinate research activities within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - and the Office of Autism Research Coordination (OARC) released the
2010 IACC Strategic Plan for Autism Spectrum Disorder Research.
This report describes the history of the IACC and Plan, the process by which the IACC develops the Plan, revisions, new areas of research emphasis - for example, increased emphasis on adults and non-verbal persons with ASDs - and then in each section elaborates the itemized questions in the broad categories, discussing what is known, what needs remain, proposed research opportunities to address these questions (short-term and long-term objectives), and a recommended budget. The 2010 Plan adds 32 brand-new objectives and describes a budget of about 965 million dollars distributed over 2 to 5 years.
Preface
Introduction
1. When Should I Be Concerned?
2. How Can I Understand What Is Happening?
3. What Caused This To Happen And Can This Be Prevented?
4. Which Treatments And Interventions Will Help?
5. Where Can I Turn For Services?
6. What Does The Future Hold?
7. What other Infrastructure and Surveillance Needs Must be Met?
Research Resources
This second edition of the Strategic Plan was expanded by the IACC over the past year with extensive input from families, people with ASD, researchers, clinicians, federal and private funders of ASD research and autism advocacy organizations - through participation in meetings held by the IACC (in-person, webcast and phone conference options available), email communication to the IACC, and by responding to the annual Request for Information.
Participation in a meeting automatically adds the attendee to an email list to receive further notices from the IACC on meetings, RFIs, reports and other activities.
There is also an IACC Twitter group where committee meeting schedules and notices are shared.
-------------------------------
For Further Reading and Reference
These references can also be found on the IACC website.
IACC News Update: Release of the 2010 Strategic Plan
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
The 2010 Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee Strategic Plan for Autism Spectrum Disorder Research - January 19, 2010
Soon to be posted 2010 Strategic Plan Budget
Responses to the 2009 IACC Request for Information (RFI)
© 2010 Regina G. Claypool-Frey
Disclaimer: This blog publishes news and announcements only as a service to interested persons, the posts are the responsibility of the individual author, and unless otherwise noted do not constitute nor claim to represent the official position of ABA International, its officers or associated entities. This blog makes no representation as to the accuracy of the report and readers are strongly encouraged to consult and reference the primary sources noted.
 On Thursday February 4, 2010, the U.S. House Committee on Education and Labor by bipartisan vote of 34-10 passedH.R. 4247: The Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act.
"To prevent and reduce the use of physical restraint and seclusion in schools, and for other purposes". This bill seeks to define in all U.S. schools minimum standards of appropriate use, reporting and accountability of restraint and seclusion use. H.R. 4247 was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives on December 9, 2009 by Representatives George Miller (Dist.7-CA) and Cathy McMorris-Rodgers (Dist.5-WA). The impetus for the bill's introduction was a May 19, 2009 hearing before the full House Committee on Education and Labor, which received wide national attention. At that hearing, the Governmental Accounting Office (GAO) submitted to the Committee its investigative report, Seclusions and Restraints: Selected Cases of Death and Abuse at Public and Private Schools and Treatment Centers. GAO-09-719T, May 19, 2009
A similar bill also in the U.S. Congress is the Senate bill, S.2680 (Dodd), "A bill to protect students from inappropriate seclusion and physical restraint, and for other purposes" The next step for H.R. 4247 is the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. ---------------------------- For further reading and referenceH.R. 4247: The Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act. Seclusions and Restraints: Selected Cases of Death and Abuse at Public and Private Schools and Treatment Centers. GAO-09-719T, May 19, 2009 MYTH VS. FACT: Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in the Schools ActBy Kittredge, Betsy Miller on February 3, 2010 11:05 AMBipartisan Legislation to Prevent Abuse in Schools Clears House CommitteeFebruary 4, 2010 12:30 PMLawmakers Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Protect Children from Abuse in SchoolsDecember 9, 2009 12:15 PMGAO Report Finds Hundreds of Allegations of Abusive and Deadly Uses of Seclusion and Restraint in SchoolsMay 19, 2009 3:07 PM© 2010 Regina G. Claypool-Frey
Disclaimer: This blog publishes news and announcements only as a service to interested persons, the posts are the responsibility of the individual author, and unless otherwise noted do not constitute nor claim to represent the official position of ABA International, its officers or associated entities. This blog makes no representation as to the accuracy of the report and readers are strongly encouraged to consult and reference the primary sources noted.
On February 2, 2010, the prestigious UK medical journal The Lancet published a formal retraction of the 1998 paper authored by Dr. Andrew Wakefield and 12 co-authors asserting that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) was linked to gastrointestinal disturbance and pervasive developmental disorders. Such a retraction constitutes a repudiation of the findings and a removal from the scientific record; in essence as if the article was never originally published. RETRACTION:Retraction—Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in childrenThe Lancet, Early Online Publication, 2 February 2010 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60175-7 (This article made available free by The Lancet with registration as a service to readers. ) removing from the scientific record, Wakefield, A.J., Murch, S.H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D.M., Malik,M., et al. (1998). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet, 351(9103), 637-641. This retraction comes just days after the January 28, 2010 ruling by the UK's General Medical Council in a 2 1/2 year investigation of allegations that Wakefield and two co-authors, John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch were guilty of serious breaches of research ethics, and engaged in unethical practice and non-adherence to the terms of ethics committee approval for the research described in the 1998 article. Wakefield in particular was reprimanded for dishonesty and irresponsibility in the conducting of the research for the 1998 article. Previous to this hearing, 10 of the 13 original authors of the study retracted their names from the article. Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch will return before the GMC in early April, at which time it will be determined whether there was guilt of serious professional misconduct. In the event of such a determination, sanctions up to loss of license to practice medicine could be applied. ------------------------------- References and for further readingMurch, S.H., Anthony, A., Casson, D.H., Malik, M., Berelowitz, M., Dhillon, A.P., Valentine, A., Davies, S.E., & Walker-Smith, J.A. (2004). Retraction of an interpretation. The Lancet, 363(9411), 750. This article is stated by The Lancet to be available free of charge with registration. Summary of the background and specific inquiries made by the GMCMedia reports Report linking autism to vaccines is retracted by medical journalBy Thomas H. Maugh II
February 2, 2010 | 9:34 a.m.
Los Angeles Times
Lancet Renounces Study Linking Autism And VaccinesScott Hensley
National Public Radio(NPR)12:25 pm
February 2, 2010Lancet accepts MMR study 'false'By Nick Triggle
Health reporter, BBC News
Page last updated at 14:22 GMT, Tuesday, 2 February 2010U.K. General Medical Council Rules Wakefield & Co. "Dishonest," "Irresponsible"2010-01-28 15:25
The Neurodiversity WeblogFrom the Lancet to the GMC: how Dr Andrew Wakefield fell from graceSarah Boseley, health editor
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 January 2010 15.37 GMTMMR scare doctor 'acted unethically', panel findslast updated at 17:35 GMT, Thursday, 28 January 2010
By Nick Triggle
Health reporter, BBC News Andrew Wakefield found 'irresponsible' by GMC over MMR vaccine scareSarah Boseley, health editor
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 January 2010 20.34 GMTDoctor in disgraceJanuary 29, 2010
TimesOnline (UK)© 2010 Regina G. Claypool-Frey
Disclaimer: This blog publishes news and announcements only as a service to interested persons, the posts are the responsibility of the individual author, and unless otherwise noted do not constitute nor claim to represent the official position of ABA International, its officers or associated entities. This blog makes no representation as to the accuracy of the report and readers are strongly encouraged to consult and reference the primary sources noted.
Some key points are, - Changes to federal financing formulas with emphasis on school performance
- Changes to education law
- Elimination of the requirement deadline of 2014 to have all students be proficient, to be replaced by graduation from high school, "college or career ready",
- Possible elimination of school ratings systems based on making "adequate yearly progress" on student test scores.
Regarding new systems, proposals are - Dividing schools into more categories to give recognition for success and increasing funding for improvement or closure of failing schools.
- Define learning goals in earlier grades
One proposal is that based on the results of programs such as the Race to the Top Fund, that similar strategies and conditions might be applied to the distribution of funding through the U.S. Department of Education so that the emphasis is on improvement of schools. Such proposed changes to educational law would be subject to Congressional approval, and the Administration is reported to be soliciting input from Congressional leaders of both parties in coming weeks to create legislative language attractive to bipartisan support. A remark on these proposals as part of the President's comments on the 2011 fiscal year budget.
"...That's why I've proposed a more than 6 percent increase in funding for the Education Department. And this funding is tied to reforms that raise student achievement, inspire students to excel in math and science, and turn around failing schools which consign too many young people to a lesser future -- because in the 21st century there is no better anti-poverty program than a world-class education..." ---------------- For more information/further readingObama to Seek Sweeping Change in ‘No Child’ Law By SAM DILLON Published: January 31, 2010
New York TimesBudgeting for a New Era of Responsibility
Posted by Jesse Lee on February 01, 2010 at 04:34 PM EST
Whitehouse.gov
Education reform: Obama budget reboots No Child Left BehindAmanda Paulson Staff writer / February 1, 2010
Christian Science MonitorFive Ways Obama's Budget Will Change Education PolicyFeb 1 2010, 2:20 pm by Derek Thompson
The AtlanticHard choices to come with fiscal year 2011 budgetTuesday, February 2, 2010
Washington PostNew York Times stories on No Child Left Behind (NCLB)NCLB U.S. Department of Education© 2010 Regina G. Claypool-Frey
Disclaimer: This blog publishes news and announcements only as a service to interested persons, the posts are the responsibility of the individual author, and unless otherwise noted do not constitute nor claim to represent the official position of ABA International, its officers or associated entities. This blog makes no representation as to the accuracy of the report and readers are strongly encouraged to consult and reference the primary sources noted.
Prefacing note: While this report is being shared as a "news item of interest" as a public event in progress, it seems relevant at this time to state that this report is not taking an editorial position on the legal aspects or allegations of this case nor the specific claimants, nor does this constitute legal interpretation. Please see the court documents for relevant specifics.On Wednesday, January 27, 2010, a decision authored by Justice Laurie D. Zelon of the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Seven was handed down in California reversing a lower court ruling, and remanding to trial court with directions; this decision allows a previously filed suit to proceed to trial. The suit filed by Arce alleges that an insurer improperly denied applied behavior analysis and speech services as categorical practice and that such denial on the specified basis constitutes violation of California's Mental Health Parity law (AB88: Insurance Code §§10144.5 & Health and Safety Code§1374.72 ). Another aspect of the case in question is the provision of service by providers that are not licensed or state certified. The case in question is ARCE v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC.----------------------------- FOR FURTHER INFO/FURTHER READING2nd Appelate District updated 1/31/2010 05:05PM Case information - Arce et al. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. et al.Decision transcript From Leagle, inc.ARCE v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC.
ANDREW ARCE, a Minor, etc. et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents.
B215861.
Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Seven.
Filed January 27, 2010.CALIFORNIA LAWMental Health Parity aka AB 88, Insurance Code §§10144.5 & Health and Safety Code§1374.72 Other articles and reports related to ARCE v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC. and regulation of ABA coverageC.A. Revives UCL Action Against Kaiser Over Autism ServicesBy KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer
Metropolitan News-Enterprise
Thursday, January 28, 2010Appeals court allows Arce vs. Kaiser autism class action to proceedJanuary 30th, 2010 at 1:48 pmState Regulators Might Require Health Plans To Cover Autism TherapyMonday, November 16, 2009
California HealthlineLetter dated 2/24/2009 from Consumer Watchdog to Cindy Ehnes, Director ,California Department of Managed Health CareApplied Behavior Analysis — the Los Angeles lawsuitSam Miller, The Orange County Register
August 15th, 2008, 8:11 amABA chapters in/for CaliforniaCalABA Public Policy and Practice page© 2010 Regina G. Claypool-Frey
Disclaimer: This blog publishes news and announcements only as a service to interested persons, the posts are the responsibility of the individual author, and unless otherwise noted do not constitute nor claim to represent the official position of ABA International, its officers or associated entities. This blog makes no representation as to the accuracy of the report and readers are strongly encouraged to consult and reference the primary sources noted.
|
