Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Aba Therapy Autism topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee declines to extend Medicaid coverage of ABA therapy to adults with autism
Summary
Senate Bill 507, which would have removed an age restriction and allowed Medicaid to cover applied behavior analysis (ABA) therapy for some adults with autism, failed in committee after the Department of Human Services raised budget and waiver‑scope concerns.
Get email alerts on the Aba Therapy Autism topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Bill 507 sought to let adults with autism—currently ineligible because of an age restriction—receive applied behavior analysis (ABA) therapy through Medicaid waivers. Sponsors and family members told the committee ABA had been life‑changing for adults with autism; the Department of Human Services warned the bill as written would expand eligibility beyond autism, producing a large fiscal exposure.
Ron Cook, a Fayetteville parent whose son receives ABA and who helped bring the bill forward, described gains in independence and employment for his son. "He has learned the value of hard work... he has been able to develop and grow and mature as a result of ABA therapy," Cook told members.
DHS officials explained a technical point about Medicaid waivers. The committee heard that placing ABA broadly into the existing 1915(c) waiver used by the state's developmental disabilities services would make the service available to waiver participants regardless of diagnosis (the waiver covers multiple qualifying conditions). DHS said earlier fiscal estimates used an imperfect baseline and that, when recalculated, the potential state share of costs ranged widely and could be substantial. DHS opposed the bill in its current form because it could expand coverage beyond the intended autism population and was not budgeted.
Sponsors said the proposal was narrowly targeted and described possible downstream savings (fewer ER visits, reduced acute care) and urged the committee to view the measure as an investment. After questions and brief closing remarks, the committee voted; the chair ruled the nays had it and the bill failed to advance.
