[brnaftr360]

I've got an anecdote from a nurse that when autism was registered as a disability the diagnostic criterion were loose enough that it enabled practitioners to fudge the numbers in favor of the families enabling them access to the special needs care and support systems which would otherwise be crippling.

If this is true, I would expect it to function as an umbrella describing symptoms rather than pathology.

EDIT: I should clarify that I'd like SubiculumCode's input on this if they find it worthy of discussion.

[SubiculumCode]

There are a couple of motivations. A diagnosis of autism opens up support services that are often needed, one way or another. Therefore, I'd acknowledge there is probably incentives for the clinical diagnostic process to favor limiting false negatives. Nevertheless, when it comes to the gold standard of autism diagnosis (i.e. the ADOS), diagnostic sensitivity has increased over the years by zeroing in one the symptoms that autistics tend to share.

The implications of this increased sensitivity has been to 1) autism prevalence has gone up , and 2) the average "severity" of autism (ADOS CSS scores) has decreased. This has also led to conflicts within the autism advocacy community: e.g. diversity vs disorder.

[hbcondo714]

> A diagnosis of autism opens up support services that are often needed, one way or another.

In the LA area, there's a 6-month wait list to see an in-network child psychologist or neurologist that can give an autism diagnosis. Booked in November 2021, our appointment is in March 2022 and therapy classes are also wait listed. We found out-of-network providers but they are charging from $2,500 to $7,000 along with a 3-month waitlist.