skip to main |
skip to sidebar
On Wednesday, April 21, 2010 the Wisconsin State Legislature after a rapid fire turnaround passed,
S.B. 667: AN ACT to renumber subchapter III of chapter 440 [precedes 440.41], subchapter IV of chapter 440 [precedes 440.51], subchapter V of chapter 440 [precedes 440.60], subchapter VI of chapter 440 [precedes 440.70], subchapter VII of chapter 440 [precedes 440.88], subchapter VIII of chapter 440 [precedes 440.90], subchapter IX of chapter 440 [precedes 440.96], subchapter X of chapter 440 [precedes 440.97], subchapter XI of chapter 440 [precedes 440.98], subchapter XII of chapter 440 [precedes 440.9805] and subchapter XIII of chapter 440 [precedes 440.99]; to amend 157.055 (2) (intro.), 441.15 (2m), 448.03 (2) (a) and 632.895 (12m) (b) 4.; and to create 440.03 (13) (b) 15m., 440.08 (2) (a) 20m., subchapter III of chapter 440 [precedes 440.310] and 632.895 (12m) (b) 3m. of the statutes; relating to: licensure and regulation of behavior analysts, insurance coverage of the services of behavior analysts for autism treatment, providing an exemption from emergency rule procedures, granting rule−making authority, and providing a penalty. S.B. 667 was introduced on April 5, 2010 and referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Health Insurance, Privacy, Property Tax Relief, and Revenue; the public hearing held on April 14, 2010. The bill was reported with passage recommendation by the Committee on April 19, 2010, and submitted to the Senate where it passed on April 20, was messaged to the House, where it was read and concurred in on April 21. The next step is Governor Jim Doyle's signature.
From the Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
"This bill provides for licensure and regulation of behavior analysts. Under the bill, no person may engage in the practice of behavior analysis unless the person has been granted a license by the Department of Regulation and Licensing (department). [definition of practice of scope of practice of behavior analysis] The bill provides that the licensure requirement may not be applied to restrict the practice of behavior analysis within the scope of practice of a licensed professional who is not a behavior analyst, if the professional does not represent that he or she is a behavior analyst. An unlicensed person who practices behavior analysis is subject to a fine up to $250, up to three months in jail, or both. The department must grant a license to an applicant who submits an application, an initial credential, and evidence that the applicant is certified as a behavior analyst by the private organization Behavior Analyst Certification Board, Inc. (board), except that the department may not grant a license to an applicant who has been convicted of certain crimes specified in the bill. The bill authorizes the department to promulgate rules regarding the practice of behavior analysis, including rules authorizing the issuance of temporary permits to practice behavior analysis, but any rules must be consistent with standards established by the board. The department may not promulgate rules that impose additional educational requirements; that require a behavior analyst to practice under supervision by, or in collaboration with, another health care provider; that require a behavior analyst to enter into an agreement with another health care provider; or that limit the location where a behavior analyst may practice. Under current law, health insurance policies and self-insured governmental and school district health plans are required to cover a specified amount of intensive-level services and nonintensive-level services provided to an insured for the treatment of autism, Asperger’s syndrome, and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified as long as the treatment is prescribed by a physician and provided by any of the following providers who are qualified to provide intensive-level services or nonintensive-level services:[list of current providers] The bill provides that the coverage must also apply to services provided by a behavior analyst who is licensed to practice behavior analysis by the department or by a paraprofessional working under the supervision of such a behavior analyst, if the behavior analyst or paraprofessional is qualified to provide intensive-level services or nonintensive-level services." The intensive-level and nonintensive-level services referenced relate to the Wisconsin autism insurance reform law (§12m) coverage passed in 2009 that specifies a four year minimum of intensive services and thereafter nonintensive services. S.B. 667 is similar to the House measure, A.B. 789, however after amendment AB 789 was tabled in the House on April 20.
For more information
Kenosha County heavily vested in various new laws, proposals
BY JOE POTENTE Kenosha News
April 21, 2010 | 11:39 p.m.
Past blog post
Friday, April 16, 2010
State legislation: Wisconsin - AB 789 would allow reimbursement for autism services by behavior analysts and create a behavior analyst license
© 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 April 15, 2010 the the Healthy Families and Communities Subcommittee of the U.S. House Committee on Education & Labor heard testimony on the topic of
Corporal Punishment in Schools and its Effect on Academic Success
Among the four witnesses to the Subcommittee was Donald E. Greydanus, M.D., FAAP, of Michigan State University's Kalamazoo Center for Medical Studies, who stated in his written testimony,
"...Research notes that corporal punishment [defined as the intentional application of physical pain as a method of behavior change - see testimony for specific named practices and citations] constructs an environment of education that can be described as unproductive, nullifying, and punitive. Children become victims, and trepidation is introduced to all in such a classroom. There is a limited (if any) sense of confidence and security; even those children who witness this type of abuse are robbed of their full learning potential...
It is critical that teachers receive adequate training and resources to help them effectively maintain classroom control without resorting to violent or aggressive techniques.2 One way to accomplish this is to provide teachers, both during pre-service and in-service training, with the ability to employ behavior management techniques that promote pro-social classroom interactions among the students; this would also promote a positive learning environment for those students..."
The other witnesses were Jana Frieler, President-Elect of the National Association of Secondary School Principals; Wynell Gilbert, a high-school teacher testifying on behalf of the Jefferson County Federation of Teachers; and Linda Pee, a Mississippi parent. All of the witnesses testified against the use of corporal punishment.
It is reported that currently there is no U.S. federal regulation on corporal punishment in schools although thirty states have prohibited the practice. The twenty remaining states are primarily in the South. A recent Washington Post article reports that the Chairperson of the Subcommittee, Representative Carolyn McCarthy, plans to introduce in a matter of weeks a resolution to ban the use of corporal punishment in U.S. Schools.
Among the citations and references supplied to the Subcommittee by Dr. Greydanus were,
- Cameron, J, & Pierce, W.D. (1993). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Reviews of Educational Research, 64(3), 363-423.
- Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, G. R. (1977). Applying behavior-analysis procedures with children and youth. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
- Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, G. R. (1986). Achieving educational excellence: Using behavioral strategies. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
For further information
Corporal Punishment in Schools and its Effect on Academic Success
Healthy Families and Communities Subcommittee Hearing 10:00 AM, April 15, 2010 2175 Rayburn H.O.B
Washington, DC
You Tube channel of the House Committee on Education & Labor
ACLU/HRW Statement on Corporal Punishment in Public Schools for Healthy Families and Communities Subcommittee Hearing
April 15, 2010
Past related posts
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Federal news: Congressional Committees focus on ESEA overhaul; advocates warming up to urge passage of Restraint & Seclusion bills in Senate HELP Committee
© 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.
Autism Votes reports that Maine Governor John Baldacci signed LD 1198 into law on April 12, 2010. The bill was passed by the legislature on April 7, 2010.
The version passed and signed into law provides insurance coverage of autism spectrum disorders, including applied behavior analysis to a limit of $36,000 per year, up to the age of six. This version was amended from the introduced version of the bill, which would have set an age limit of 21. The law will take effect January 1, 2011.
As written, the new law provides coverage for applied behavior analysis as a "habilitative and rehabilitative service"; however it does not explicitly state the provider of these services, nor does it specify the BACB certification or competencies for delivery of applied behavior analysis service.
For more information
Autism Votes Maine
Past posts
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
State legislation - Maine SP 446/LD 1198 passes with amendment in Committee; changes result in mixed feelings by advocates
© 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.
|
