A close family member of mine has autism, and I have seen firsthand the limitations of our healthcare system.
Families are often told there is nothing they can do. If they pursue anything outside the narrow medical playbook, they are met with skepticism or silence.
Even when insurance covers therapies like Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), speech therapy, and occupational therapy, these programs often come with high out-of-pocket costs, frequent therapist turnover, and uneven results. Meanwhile, treatments grounded in functional medicine remain excluded from coverage.
This is not just about autism. It reflects a broader failure in how we treat chronic illness.
Take asthma. My wife has had it since early childhood.
In the late 1990s, researchers discovered that combining budesonide, a corticosteroid, with formoterol, a long-acting bronchodilator, significantly improved asthma control by both reducing inflammation and providing rapid relief. That combination eventually became Symbicort, approved by the FDA in 2006 and launched in 2007.
The SMART trial and a 2019 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine confirmed that using budesonide and formoterol as needed reduced severe asthma attacks more effectively than albuterol alone.
This body of research directly supported the approval of a generic version of Symbicort called Breyna. Due to regulatory and patent delays, Breyna didn’t reach the market until July 2023.
This 16-year lag kept costs high and patients waiting, despite strong clinical evidence. The same problem persists in autism care, where access to promising therapies is dictated not by science, but by outdated insurance models and bureaucratic inertia.
Some treatments for autism show early promise and are widely regarded as safe. Probiotics and gut-based therapies are among them.
A 2024 study published in Scientific Reports found that children with autism had significantly lower levels of Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus reuteri, and Bifidobacterium longum — beneficial bacteria known as psychobiotics — compared to typically developing children.
Another therapy worth considering is hyperbaric oxygen therapy. A 2024 study published in Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology found that HBOT produced positive effects in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder, particularly in improving attention and social functioning.
It is already FDA-approved for other conditions and, when done in a clinical setting, is generally low risk.
Sound therapy also falls into this category. Auditory integration therapy and similar approaches have been evaluated in a small number of studies, with mixed results.
A Cochrane review of seven trials found measurable benefits in only two studies. While the evidence is limited, these therapies are noninvasive and carry minimal risk, making them reasonable options for families to explore when conventional treatments have failed.
Diagnostic tools such as the Organic Acids Test (OAT) and tests for mold and mycotoxins are gaining traction among integrative physicians. These tests identify microbial imbalances or environmental exposures that may contribute to inflammation and behavioral symptoms.
A 2024 study from the University of Toledo found that when mice and prairie voles with mutations in the SHANK3 gene were exposed to the common insecticide deltamethrin during pregnancy, their offspring exhibited behaviors closely resembling autism.
These therapies share a common trait: They’re safe, and families see results. Yet insurers routinely refuse to cover them, simply because they fall outside traditional billing structures.
To be clear, some therapies pose risks that far outweigh their benefits.
Chelation therapy is only appropriate when there is confirmed evidence of toxicity. As clinical psychologist Julie Landry warns, it can result in “kidney damage, electrolyte imbalances and even death for those without heavy metal poisoning.”
Similarly, stem cell therapy, though promising in theory, remains experimental and requires further study.
These two options should not be used outside of rigorously monitored clinical trials.
The standard for coverage should not be absolute certainty. It should be clinical plausibility, patient safety and real-world outcomes.
We should trust parents to explore low-risk therapies that show promise for their children, especially when mainstream options have failed to deliver meaningful improvement.
As physicist Richard Feynman once said, “I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” That spirit of curiosity and honest inquiry should guide how we approach autism treatments.
Families seeking safe and promising options should not be punished for asking the right questions, especially when the system has no better answers.
We need a healthcare system that rewards healing, not just compliance. Insurance policies must evolve to support diagnostics that reveal root causes, not just suppress symptoms.
Our politicians must stand with families who are finding success outside the narrow constraints of legacy protocols.
If we’re serious about reducing chronic illness and improving quality of life, we must begin covering the treatments that work.
Robert Zapesochny is a researcher and writer. His work focuses on foreign affairs, national security, and presidential history. He’s been published in numerous outlets, including The American Spectator, The Washington Times, and The American Conservative. When he’s not writing, Robert works for a medical research company in New York. Read Robert Zapesochny’s Reports — More Here.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
