I hope i'm not coming off as a doomsday sayer. There are several people who have very and emotional reactions to this. and they're being far too reactionary. I'm just confused why SPA is making one particular evidenced based therapy program more financially attractive. There are others that have empirical support (I'm thinking of Palin PCIT, Fluency Rules etc). I think this is likely because I'm not familiar with the Australian system. I don't understand why there needs to be a the 'go big or go home' attitude ... and thus SPA has not gone big for fear of going home. I like Lidcombe. I think it's a good program. But I worry that financially incentivizing a particular therapy program may result in SLTs and families relying on that therapy program even if another might work better. And at some level it's taking away from clinical decision making ability on the part of the SLT. There may be pressure to commit to Lidcombe even if they parents or child are not well suited for it. Another way to think about it is that for people who don't want to continue for can't continue for whatever reason there is then a financial penalty regarding receipt of services.