Gene, I believe you have been exceptionally even-handed and objective throughout this debate, regardless of what others may charge.
I personally do not believe that we will see sufficient funding for the treatment of alleged abductees going forward. While I am not an authority in the field, I doubt qualified therapists will want to spend much time on treating otherwise normal patients for abduction-related anxiety, particularly if they are being compensated for doing so by the Federal government (n.b., does anyone know if the new health care legislation even covers mental health disorders outside of the most serious psychiatric conditions?). If this does occur, it is unlikely that the feedback will be centralized so that abduction researchers can advance their understanding of the phenomenon (question how much of this type of therapy currently does in fact happen for the wealthy but the researchers never hear about it, for whatever reason). If we are lucky, then there will be a few therapists who work alongside the researchers, but my instinct tells me they will be in constant jeopardy of not having their bills paid by any public health fund (or worse yet -- charged with some other type of wrongdoing or professional rebuke). This results in 'researcher-affiliated therapists' largely treating wealthy patients, which are probably the clear minority of patients.
The idea above about a MUFON-affiliated effort (or similar arrangement with a private sponsor) may be the best solution available, although those arrangements are always subject to claims of inherent bias given the nature of MUFON/the private sponsor. And if this was feasible, wouldn't this have occurred already? Where will MUFON get the funds? Will the private sponsor keep the results private? How many independently wealthy qualified therapists will dedicate themselves to abduction cases, as opposed to indigent, seriously mentally ill patients? And the John Macks of the world -- well qualified professionals situated in an academic institution paying their salaries -- are obviously few and far between (n.b., why has John Macks' work and use of hypnosis largely been left out of the debate on this forum?). Perhaps the best formula is a number of therapists working alongside the researchers only part time, while paying their bills by treating other patients. That is even ambitious: who wants to be affiliated with this?
Sorry for the pessimistic assessment -- hope I am wrong! However, I don't see much changing absent the unlikely emergence of a civic-minded private donor and a few qualified therapists who want to be associated with this.