[NeuroCoder]

The problem was that a diagnosis of Asperger's was unreliable and therefore useless. We definitely need to identify individuals within the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder that can reliably be identified and benefit from specific interventions. However, Asperger's did not provide that.

[faeriechangling]

No, the problem was that psychiatrists could bill insurers more to treat autism than they could Asperger's. You aren't cynical enough.

If it wasn't a scientific distinction, why are we still identifying autism subtypes?

[didufis]

I think this is precisely why for-profit healthcare is wild. If it weren’t for ideology we could get behind socialised care and cut out all of the nonsense.

[TeaBrain]

Do you have any information on patients could be billed more for an autism diagnosis? I've never heard this claim before.

[TeaBrain]

>diagnosis of Asperger's was unreliable and therefore useless

If this is true, then in what way is the diagnosis of autism reliable, that the Asperger's label was not?

[NeuroCoder]

Asperger's was not reliably diagnosable between healthcare workers trained to diagnose it. In other words, a diagnosis of Asperger's in someone's medical chart was not a reliable way of knowing if they had Asperger's.

[TeaBrain]

I'd argue that having the descriptor of "asperger's" is much more useful than simply having a blanket descriptor of "autism". Low functioning people who are described as having autism, have very little in common with most of the high functioning type.

[seba_dos1]

> have very little in common

[citation needed]

[throwawaymaths]

The problem was that asperger was a problematic physician at best.