Governor Ed Rendell recently signed a law mandating that insurance in Pennsylvania cover autism treatment, up to $36,000 a year for children under 21. Autism advocates, as you may imagine, are pleased.

In addition to the usual comments from parents happy to see someone else paying for this treatment, the article does have an interesting comment from an economist who answers why this disorder -- and not others -- has mandatory coverage:

"Because that is the particular patient-advocacy group that has the governor's ear at the moment," said Mark Pauly, a health economist at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. "The worry, however, is that using that as a mechanism to determine what appropriate coverage should be doesn't seem like the most scientific or systematic or fairest way to make those kinds of determinations."

While there is no mention of how this will raise rates and perhaps price some people out of insurance coverage, at least it's nice to see a little discussion about how special interest politics plays a role in insurance mandates.