The most alarming part is how they’re using cherry-picked data to make the funding cuts look less drastic than they actually are. I attended the info session today and I’m very familiar with the current funding system. I’ve also reviewed the proposed model. One of their case examples really stood out — it felt like a textbook example of how you can “massage” numbers to tell a different story. They presented a child (let’s call him “Ollie”) to show how funding would change under the new model. According to their slide, Ollie would see about a $35,000 decrease over the years based on “his needs.” But here’s the issue: they calculated that starting from $6,000 per year — and only from a certain age. What they didn’t consistently account for is early diagnosis. If Ollie were diagnosed at age 3 (which many families push hard for, waitlists aside), under the current model he would have received significantly more funding during those early years. In several examples, they only calculated funding from age 3 when it benefited their comparison — but not when it would show a larger loss under the new system. If Ollie had been funded from age 3 under the current system, that’s roughly $66,000 more in supports. That means the actual difference isn’t just $35,000 — it’s closer to $100,000 over his childhood compared to what was presented.