Definition of autism prompts new debate over categories

Some families and activists say the Autism Spectrum Disorder label is too broad and want a separate 'profound' high‑needs category, while disability advocates warn such a label could lead to more segregated services; CDC data shows about one in 31 eight‑year‑olds has been diagnosed.

A growing public conversation is debating how autism should be categorized in the United States. Some parents and activists argue the current Autism Spectrum Disorder umbrella is too broad and that very severe cases with intensive needs get lost in the sweep of the spectrum. Disability advocates and some experts, including Ari Ne'eman, caution that creating a separate "profound" or high‑needs category could risk a return to segregation and reduced community supports. Federal attention, rising diagnosis rates, and recent policy statements have put the question back into public view. Key points: - Some families and op‑eds call for a distinct "profound" or high‑needs autism category, saying the existing spectrum does not highlight the most intensive care needs. - Ari Ne'eman and other disability rights advocates warn a new political category could justify more segregated services and repeat past harms associated with institutionalization. - The CDC reports about one in 31 eight‑year‑olds has been diagnosed with autism across 16 surveillance programs, a substantial rise since tracking began in 2000. - The DSM‑5 consolidated earlier autism subtypes into Autism Spectrum Disorder in 2013, added sensory criteria, and introduced levels to indicate support needs; experts say broader criteria and greater awareness have contributed to higher diagnosis rates. - Federal officials have announced reviews and research into possible causes and responses; many scientific studies have not found a vaccine link and current research emphasizes genetic contributions. Summary: Changes to how autism is defined could influence service delivery and living arrangements for people with severe impairments, and experts disagree about whether new labels would help or harm those outcomes. Federal reviews and ongoing research are underway, and how diagnostic categories might change is undetermined at this time.