Introduction: Sara’s Diet and the IDEA
By Kenneth J. Haber
The Individuals with Disabilities Act
(IDEA) provides for various services which can be of assistance for
those who cannot afford the appropriate medical testing and
evaluations. Additionally, under the circumstances of a residential
program, it can be argued that the cost of the diet’s food and food
supplements themselves ought to be covered
by the Local Education Agency (LEA).
One would expect a significant resistance to these
interpretations from a school system initially. Therefore, those who
can afford to bear their own costs might be advised to do so if they
are most interested in implementing the diet, instead of fighting over
the cost of the diet. Yet, for subsequent children, who follow after
some child in the community responds well to the diet, and also for
those children whose parents are not blessed financially to be able to
bear these extra costs, the following information should prove helpful:
Supplemental Payment for Special
Dietary Needs In a Residential Setting and Payment for Medical
Diagnostic and Evaluation Services; 20 USC 1401 ( 17 ) and 34 CFR
300.302
As a precursor to the financial/legal
aspects about to be discussed, it would be appropriate to review
certain pertinent information, which factually justifies a request for
payments. This and other similar information should be related to your
LEA. As we know, certain autistic children have become symptom-free
based upon dietary intervention. Other autistic children faithfully and
correctly on the diet for over 6 months have all made significant
behavioral improvements. Sandra Johnson Desorgher has developed a
lutein-free dietary approach to dealing with autism. Sandra has a
database of over 1200 children on the diet, approximately 10% are
symptom free. Furthermore, this figure is unfair to the diet because
effective tracking is not currently possible due to limited financial
resources. Additionally, effective implementation and monitoring of the
diet is also significantly restricted due to financial limitations.
Sandra’s 14-year-old autistic adopted daughter (now 19), who Sandra
already had on a gluten-free, casein restricted diet, became
symptom-free in two weeks after including a carotenoid pigment-free
aspect to her diet. Sara was 11-years-old when she became symptom-free
and this status continues.
What is preliminarily needed to
most effectively undertake the dietary approach is certain diagnostic
testing for food allergies and intolerances, digestive system
deficiencies, and immune system deficiencies (or excesses). These
diagnostic tests provide the basic information needed to construct an
appropriate diet for these autistic
children as well as to determine what, if any, medical treatment is
appropriate.
The capsulated theory is that deficiencies in the immune, digestive and
metabolic systems as well as food allergy and food intolerance result
in
body chemistry imbalances which effect the neurotransmitters in the
brain.
Thus, one can readily recognize how useful and appropriate medical
testing
is.
The IDEA starts at Title 20 USC
§ 1400. Title 20 USC § 1401 ( 17 ) specifically defines
“related services” which are to be provided, at no costs to the
parents, under the IDEA as “Including medical services, except that
such medical services shall be for
diagnostic and evaluation purposes only”. Inasmuch as the requested
payment
would be for diagnostic testing charges and are not related to charges
for
medical treatment, these charges should certainly be covered.
Theoretically, the use of one’s insurance should not even be required
because one’s policy normally has a payment limit and therefore, it
would be considered a cost to a parent contrary to the concept of a
Free Appropriate Public Education ( FAPE ). One might offer, in the
spirit of cooperation, to utilize their limited insurance resource so
long as the LEA is willing to reimburse for uncovered testing charges
and such other charges as co-pays and the applicable deductibles.
As far as reimbursement for extra
food costs, if a child is in a residential program and if the private
school charges parents for special diets, the LEA should consider
several factors as to the issue of reimbursement. First, federal
regulation at 34 CFR 300.302 requires that a residential program must
provide that “non-medical care and
room and board, must be at no cost to the parents of the child.”
Therefore, the LEA is required by law to cover such costs as
supplemental food charges and food supplements that are appropriate for
the child’s dietary needs.
Second, while there may be current
increased
food costs that are directly attributable to the child’s diet, the LEA
and
the community which serves would ultimately save substantial financial
funds
inasmuch as the child could very possibly ultimately be able to return
to
his/her home, if the child is in a residential placement, or otherwise
require
less or no services.
Furthermore, the children, who have
undertaken this dietary approach and who have not yet become
symptom-free, after 6 months on the diet, have all manifested
significant behavioral and other improvements. This makes them more
available for training, eventually less in need of more restrictive
environments, and less dependent as they become mature adults. This
adds up to savings for the LEA as well as long term savings for the
community as a whole in years to come.