Gib, as his friends and family preferred to call him, was born on March 15, 1922, in Gower, Missouri and lived in the Kansas City area for many years. He was the younger of two children born to O.V. and Eva Birt.

He attended the University of Missouri at Columbia where he was an active member of the Beta Theta Pi fraternity. He graduated in 1943, and entered the U.S. Army, spending two years overseas as a pilot in the Army Air Corps. While overseas he met his future wife, Giovanna Matteucci, while on assignment to the U.S. 5th Army stationed in Italy. Shortly after the end of World War II, they were married in Kansas City at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception and moved to the Oklahoma panhandle. He and his family settled there and owned a cattle ranch.

In 1955, after several years of ranching, Gib moved his family back to the Kansas City area where he worked for Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance as a Loan Supervisor. In 1961 he and his brother began developing garden apartments in Kansas City’s northland, as well as the Country Club Plaza area.

Gib was well liked by his many friends and associates, and he always looked forward to meeting new people and debating the finer points of classical music, politics, religion and history. He appreciated the opera and theatre, and regularly attended the Kansas City Symphony and Lyric Opera performances. He took up skiing and scuba diving at the age of 59 and could be counted on to travel far and wide with many friends.

He was preceded in death by his beloved wife and the mother of his children, Giovanna, and by his brother, William "Bill" Birt, as well as his second wife, Carol. In 2005 he was particularly devastated by the sudden and tragic death of his daughter, Elizabeth, an attorney who had championed various causes for a cure to autism.

Gib is survived by two sons and daughters-in-law, George Birt and wife Paula, and Jim Birt and wife Susan, Kansas City; seven grandchildren, Meredith Birt, Kansas City; Tim Birt, U.S. Army stationed in Afghanistan; Betsey Birt, New York City; Alexa Birt, Kansas City; and Elizabeth’s children, Sarah, Matthew and Andrew Lopez, Winnetka, Illinois; two nieces, Jeanne Snowden, Kansas City, and Jacquelyn Birt, Scottsdale, Arizona; and many other extended family members.

The family suggests contributions to the Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law & Advocacy (EBCALA) or to the Wounded Warrior Project.

ALISYN CAMEROTA: There is a major debate brewing in the medical field, and that is: How should autism be defined? The definition, which now includes a wide range of disorders, may be tightened to limit how many kids fall under the diagnosis of autism. But parents are very concerned about this. They say the stricter criteria may prevent their children from getting the services that they need.

Joining me now to talk about this is Jodi Bouer. She is an insurance advocate and a litigator for families with autistic children.

Jodi, thanks so much for being here to help us make sense of all of this.

Why is the American Psychiatric Association considering changing the definition of autism?

JODI BOUER: I think that they are trying to be more specific about the conditions that might fall within the scope of the definition, but they haven’t realized that in narrowing the definition, that they are going to be hurting a lot of children.

ALISYN CAMEROTA: And how are they hurting children by this?

JODI BOUER: Well, in the DSM-IV, the current definition, there is a pervasive development disorder spectrum, and kids with autism, Asperger’s, PDD-NOS, all fall within the scope of the spectrum.

They have gotten rid of pervasive development disorder in the proposed definition and they have something called autism spectrum disorder, which requires a trio of three symptoms, social and communication deficits and repetitive behavior. A lot of kids who have PDD-NOS and Asperger’s, possibly, are no longer going to fit within the scope of that definition.

ALISYN CAMEROTA: Because they don’t have repetitive behaviors?

JODI BOUER: Because they might not have repetitive behaviors.

ALISYN CAMEROTA: So, basically, what it sounds like you are saying is that when they change the definition, the symptoms for kids who were previously on the spectrum won’t change, they will still have their same symptoms of anti-social behavior, or whatever it is; however, they won’t be able to get coverage?

JODI BOUER: They won’t be able to get coverage, because the state mandates basically lay out the diagnoses that require coverage, and within the scope of those mandates, typically, it’s autism, Asperger’s, PDD-NOS.

PDD-NOS and Asperger’s is no longer going to exist. A large — or a portion of the children who have those symptoms, don’t have social communication disorders and repetitive behaviors. They are no longer going to be considered autistic, so the statutes are not going to protect them anymore.

ALISYN CAMEROTA: We just threw up a map of all the states. You can see how widespread this is throughout the country. I mean, there are a lot of states that are considering doing this. And by the way, the CDC — there was a 2007 study that estimated the lifetime cost of care for a child on the spectrum to be $3.2 million. So now families will have to somehow come up with that money if they want treatment for their children.

JODI BOUER: That’s right. Diagnosis drives treatment, you know, and treatment — you know, if they don’t have the diagnosis, they are not going to have insurance protection. And the parents are going to be the ones to pick up the costs, the school districts are going to be the ones to pick up the costs, if they can even get the school district’s support in the first place. Social services are going to pick up the costs. The children are going to be fighting for coverage without a diagnosis.

ALISYN CAMEROTA: Is it possible the American Psychiatric Association will reconsider and that they won’t change the definition?

JODI BOUER: That’s a good question. Right now, the definition is in flux. They are considering whether or not to change it. It’s not set in stone. And so, you know, we need to comment on it. They are taking comments from people, from the public, from the psychiatric community. We need to comment on it. We need to let them know that by narrowing the definition, they are going to take away a lot of services from kids.

ALISYN CAMEROTA: Because right now, kids who are on that lower scale of the spectrum who maybe might be more high-functioning, are they in regular classrooms in schools with other kids and functioning?

JODI BOUER: You know, if they get intensive behavioral therapy and speech and physical therapy when they are young, and they get that through the help of the state insurance mandates, they very well could be in much better shape later on and won’t need help from the system as — you know, as they become adults. If those kids don’t get those therapies because they don’t have the protection of state mandates, that’s what’s going to happen, they are going to be in trouble. They are going to need help as adults. It’s going to be a much higher cost to society.

ALISYN CAMEROTA: So for all the parents who are watching us this morning, what can they do to make sure that this doesn’t go forward?

JODI BOUER: They have to reach out to their legislators, they have to, you know, reach out to the DSM — the people that are changing the DSM. They have to –

ALISYN CAMEROTA: Can they write directly to the American Psychiatric Association?

JODI BOUER: I think they can write directly to the American Psychiatric Association. They can start to protest the new definition. We need to have — we need to cry out and comment on this change. It’s a narrowing of the definition. It’s going to hurt a lot of kids.

ALISYN CAMEROTA: Well, Jodi Bouer, thanks so much for coming in and opening our eyes to all of this. We really appreciate it.

JODI BOUER: Thank you so much.

ALISYN CAMEROTA: It was great to see you.

Jodi Bouer, EBCALA board member and health insurance attorney, discussed the controversial redefinition of autism proposed by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) on FOX and Friends on January 28. 

A Yale School of Medicine researcher, Dr. Fred Volkmar, recently used the APA’s new criteria for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders version five (DSM V) to find that only 45% of individuals who have an autism diagnosis today would retain that diagnosis. The New York Times reported extensively on this development last week.

Since diagnoses determine eligibility for services, this constricted definition would likely withhold remedial services for more than half of all individuals diagnosed with autism today. This could be a disaster for both the autism community and the wider public.

EBCALA issued a press release with other autism and environmental groups to warn of the serious risks of the proposed changes. The coalition is deeply concerned about the possible cut-off of services and about the future of scientific research. Could this redefinition jeopardize years of research and millions of dollars already invested? Has the APA fully considered all the ramifications of the proposed changes? SafeMinds Executive Director, Eric Uram, stated in the press release, “Toxic exposures to the general population change over time and having good consistent epidemiology allows researchers to judge the likelihood of a toxin being involved in autism.”

EBCALA can see no solid foundation for these proposed changes. Dr. Fred Volkmar stated in the New York Times, “The changes would narrow the diagnosis so much that it could effectively end the autism surge… We would nip it in the bud.” Ending the autism epidemic in name only is surely an unworthy goal for the APA or anyone else.

Please contact the APA to express your concern about how these changes might affect those living with autism at

• apa@psych.org or
• 1-888-357-7924. 

Ask the APA what impact it expects the redefinition to have on health insurance coverage, state services, school district services, and epidemiological research. Ask the APA to explain its rationale for these changes. Tell them your views.

For additional information press contacts are listed below.

January 26, 2012

Changes in DSM-5 Autism Definition Could Negatively Impact Millions

Autism organizations concerned that autism diagnostic changes will jeopardize services, impair tracking, and disrupt research around the globe.

WASHINGTON, DC – Proposed changes to the diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorders in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – 5 (DSM-5) will potentially disrupt appropriate and necessary services to hundreds of thousands of individuals in the US, hamper the ability to track the numbers of people with autism, and interfere with efforts to establish biological causes of autism.

“The proposed criteria make it significantly more difficult to qualify for an autism spectrum diagnosis and they completely eliminate the categories of PDD-NOS and Asperger’s Disorder,” stated Wendy Fournier, National Autism Association President. “In a well- intentioned desire to improve the specificity of an ASD diagnosis, the new criteria may, in fact, go too far and create unintended consequences. It is critically important that any diagnosis address all the symptoms of an individual and allow them the supports they need.”

The new criteria, rationale and previous criteria are available at: http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=94

Currently, the federal government is spending millions of dollars to track prevalence of ASDs in 11 states; the 2000 birth cohort is due out this year. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires schools to report the number of students with autism annually. Both sets of data have shown dramatic increases in autism spectrum disorders. One in 110 children in the US is now affected by autism compared to one in 10,000 in the early 1980’s. By significantly changing the criteria for diagnosis, the new DSM-5 will impair the ability of public health officials to compare future rates of autism spectrum disorders to past rates, since the definition will have changed. Accurate projections of trends in autism rates are critical to planning educational interventions, Medicaid and adult services. "By analogy, if the medical community chose to only count melanoma in the future instead of all types of skin cancer, it would look like skin cancer rates had gone down, even though other types were still present and needed treatment,” said Ginger Taylor, Canary Party Executive Director.

In addition, incidence and prevalence are critically important to investigating environmental causes of autism. “Toxic exposures to the general population change over time and having good consistent epidemiology allows researchers to judge the likelihood of a toxin being involved in autism,” stated Eric Uram, SafeMinds Executive Director. “The APA’s new criteria should add a specific mechanism to map the old diagnoses onto the new ones in order to allow researchers to compare new and old datasets. We also would like to see the APA address the issue of regressive autism by including age of onset as part of the criteria. The etiologies of infantile vs. regressive autism may be entirely different, but the new criteria do not distinguish them in any way.”

A primary concern for parents is the likelihood that many children on the autism spectrum may not be diagnosed under the new criteria, thereby depriving them of appropriate early intervention and treatment. “Even in the states that have passed autism insurance legislation, the tightening of the criteria for autism may exclude children who need treatment with Applied Behavior Analysis,” said Mary Holland, Managing Director of the Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy. “Our organizations advocate that the criteria should err on the side of over-diagnosing rather than under-diagnosing since no harm is likely from providing educational services to a young child, but great potential can be lost by not providing treatment.” Early intensive treatment improves outcomes for children with autism, making it highly cost-effective for tax-payers when compared to providing adult services.

"The autism community strongly recommends that the proposed DSM-5 autism spectrum disorder diagnostic criteria be revisited with these concerns in mind," concludes Sallie Bernard, President of SafeMinds. “These issues are too important to remain unresolved.”

For more complete documentation of community concerns and questions, please visit www.safeminds.org.

Katie Weisman
Director of Communications, SafeMinds
Mt. Kisco, New York (914) 666-0290

Wendy Fournier
President, National Autism Association
Portsmouth, Rhode Island (401) 835-5828

Lisa Ackerman
TACA Founder Irvine, California (949) 640-4401

Rita Shreffler
Executive Director, The Autism File
Springfield, Missouri (417) 818-9030

Ginger Taylor
Executive Director, The Canary Party
Brunswick, Maine (855) 711-5282

Angela Fish
Executive Director, Exceptional Families Network
Puyallup, Washington (253) 830-4368

Mary Kay Betz
Executive Director, The Autism Society of Illinois
Lombard, Illinois (630) 691-1270

Rebecca Estepp
Director of Communications, Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy
Poway, California (858) 829-6454

Doreen Caruso
President/Co-Founder, The Pilot House
Fairfield, Connecticut (203) 292-8452

John Gilmore
Executive Director, Autism Action Network
Garden City, New York (516) 382-0081

The Dallas Volunteer Attorney Program (DVAP) presented the Dallas Office of Patton Boggs with the Pro Bono Law Firm of the Year Award at the annual awards reception on October 26th.

Each year, DVAP, a joint project of the Dallas Bar Association and Legal Aid of NorthWest Texas, honors the lawyers, judges and other legal professionals who donate pro bono services. This year, the award for Pro Bono Law Firm of the Year was given to the Dallas Office of Patton Boggs. Patton Boggs has a long-standing commitment to the development and delivery of legal services to people of limited means not only here in Texas, but nationwide throughout all of their offices. The firm’s commitment to public service is grounded in the strong belief that lawyers have a profound obligation to give back to their communities. Helping lead that charge is Mike Forshey, Partner and Co-Chair of the Firm’s Pro Bono Committee, who has a long history of pro bono work and despite a busy litigation docket devotes a substantial amount of his time guiding the firm’s pro bono efforts.

In 2011, the Dallas office of Patton Boggs contributed over 8,000 pro bono hours, of which almost 3,000 hours were donated to DVAP clients. Firm-wide, Patton Boggs contributes over 50,000 pro bono hours annually. According to Mr. Forshey, “we are honored as attorneys to help those who are less fortunate and as a firm we are true believers in the many positive aspects of community and pro bono service. We take great pride in our commitment as a firm in giving back to the community and serving those in need.”

At Patton Boggs, all attorneys are encouraged to do pro bono work and associates are required to perform at least 100 hours of pro bono legal services every year. “Our lawyers at Patton Boggs want to help others, we embrace the challenges of helping those who cannot help themselves, and with that culture our attorneys are ready to take on any challenge,” added Mr. Forshey. Pro bono matters undertaken by Patton Boggs are diverse and have included helping indigent clients with matters involving family abuse, divorces, estate matters and landlord tenant disputes, protection of civil rights, political asylum cases for people facing violence or death if they return to their home country and helping our veterans obtain needed benefits. Patton Boggs also assists many worthy charitable organizations and causes which assist those in need.

Patton Boggs recently secured a pro bono victory for the Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy (EBCALA). An autistic child enrolled in a Texas public school was physically and illegally restrained and placed in a secluded room. The trauma resulted in respiratory problems requiring medical attention. Homebound services were requested from the school district to allow the child to continue his education; however, the request was denied. After being turned down by other organizations, the family turned to EBCALA and Patton Boggs partner Jennifer Keefe for help. This hotly contested case, including three mediations (the final one being 11 hours), ultimately settled on highly confidential, but extremely favorable terms, which will allow the family to pay for private education for the child.

In addition to Patton Boggs pro bono work with DVAP, the firm is also involved in other pro bono activities throughout Dallas, including Education is Freedom, Texas C-Bar, KickStart Kids, Human Rights Initiative of North Texas, Texas Appleseed, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, The Child Abuse Prevention Center, Autism One and Catholic Charities.

DVAP congratulates Patton Boggs as the 2011 Pro Bono Firm of the Year and thanks each and every one of its attorneys for their service and commitment to providing these pro bono services.

Rob Ramage is an attorney at Anderson Tobin and practices employment, commercial, and intellectual property law. He can be reached at rramage@andersontobin.com.

This article originally appeared at www.dallasbar.org.

We hope that you’ll take a moment to browse through photos of the event.

EBCALA would like to extend special thanks to our hosts, Jim and Jimmie Holland, as well as to our host committee which included Kevin Barry, Mary Coyle, John Gilmore, Mary Holland, David Holland, David Kirby, Robert Krakow, Louise Kuo Habakus, Kim Mack Rosenberg, Todd Rosenbaum, Melanie Seymour Holland and Katie Weisman.

If you couldn’t join us this year, we hope that we will see you soon at our next event.