Voon Pang wrote a piece on the [stuttering foundation's blog](http://www.stutteringhelp.org/blog/problem-one-size-fits-all) sums up my lingering fears about this. (He's from Perth and practices in Auckland, so he's more familiar with SPA than me) > Speech Pathology Australia’s aim to reduce the cost of stuttering treatment for pre-schoolers is a step in the right direction. However, to endorse only one approach, and one that has not been shown to be superior to other approaches is a major misstep in health care. The clarification is largely restating what's already been said. SPA is not indicating other SLTs cannot use other treatments, but it is proposing rebates for only one program. This functionally limits what approaches SLTs can do. An SLT in the states sent this email on the ASHA's SIG4 listerv > SPA is proposing the government provide rebates for only one specific treatment. You can choose to pretend it's not "promotion", but it certainly elevates, approves, sanctions, and prefers​ that one treatment over all others. Only someone who works in politics would act like this is significantly different from "promotion". The motivation for this policy is still mysterious to me. Why on earth would SPA want to approach the government and propose a restriction on allowable services? **Not to mention that the clinical advising group on this policy is the same group that created the single proposed recommended treatment...conflict of interest?** This is another problem I have with this. It's just a mess. Ugh. At least it's good to know that the US isn't the only country to have problems getting fluency therapy covered. :-/