Committee hears competing views on bill to allow outside ABA providers in schools

The Michigan House Education and Workforce Committee heard more than an hour of testimony on House Bill 50 44, a proposal to permit outside applied behavior analysis (ABA) providers to deliver clinically prescribed services in public schools.

School special-education leaders told the committee the bill’s definition—"any medically necessary service"—is written so broadly that "the gate is wide open," raising the risk that medically billed services will duplicate, crowd out or conflict with services schools must provide under federal special-education law. They said funding, supervision and compliance with IEP procedures are unresolved.

The committee heard from Eric Hopstock, superintendent at Berrien Regional Education Service Agency, who said the bill’s language could force schools to reconcile two separate systems. "It is any medically necessary service. So the gate is wide open," Hopstock said, adding that privately billed clinical services are governed by medical rules and private-insurance processes while school services are governed by IDEA and job-specific educational requirements. He described potential "crowd out" of educationally required services, noting local school districts have expanded in‑school ABA capacity in recent years and that bringing multiple funders and providers into the same school day could create scheduling and funding conflicts.

Kelly Rogers, a school psychologist and board-certified behavior analyst who coordinates special education at Charlevoix-Emmet ISD, urged legislators to rely on the individualized education program (IEP) process and recently issued state guidance. "The IEP process is the tool by which IEP teams identify a student's needs that impact their access and progress in school and outline the supports and services that they need that are required for what we call FAPE," Rogers said. She told the committee that Michigan Department of Education and Michigan Department of Health and Human Services published joint guidance in the spring that, in her view, already provides a roadmap for how schools and clinical providers should coordinate ABA services.

By contrast, Dan Unum, director of the Autism Legal Resource Center, told the committee the bill is intended to address medically necessary ABA services that go beyond what schools provide under IDEA and can be required as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. "This bill is not about FAPE," Unum said. He argued clinical ABA delivered across settings can address functional impairments that affect a child’s life outside school, and he cited out‑of‑state guidance and case law to say other states treat those services as distinct from IDEA entitlements.

Committee members asked about two recurring concerns: how billing would work if Medicaid or private insurers consider a provider medically necessary at the same time the school is providing services, and whether bringing privately funded clinicians into school classrooms could undermine the least restrictive environment (LRE) principle under IDEA. Witnesses described existing approaches—memoranda of understanding, contracting, and delineated roles—used by districts to avoid double billing and to integrate external clinicians, but also said the details would have to be spelled out in policy or statute.

No committee vote on House Bill 50 44 was recorded during the meeting. Committee members requested additional comparisons between the bill’s proposals and the recently published Michigan Department of Education guidance and asked staff to provide a concise one‑page chart showing overlaps and gaps.

This hearing collected two different viewpoints: local education leaders emphasized IDEA compliance, service definitions, supervision and funding, while disability‑rights advocates emphasized access to medically necessary care under civil‑rights law. The committee will consider the testimony and follow up with additional information before making a recommendation.