Michigan House panel hears opposition to bill that would require access for private ABA providers; MDE urges guidance and collaboration first
Loading...
Summary
The House Education and Workforce Committee heard opposition to House Bill 50‑44 from special‑education attorneys and administrators who warned the bill could conflict with IDEA and raise insurance and liability concerns; Michigan Department of Education officials urged districts to implement newly issued guidance and called for collaboration between schools and private providers.
The House Education and Workforce Committee heard testimony and questioning Thursday on House Bill 50‑44, a proposal to address access for private applied behavior analysis (ABA) providers in public schools.
Attorney Michelle (introduced in committee materials as Michelle Eddy; she identified herself orally as Michelle Etienne), who said she represents members of the Michigan Association of Administrators for Special Education, testified in opposition. She told the committee the bill “interferes with the school's ability to comply with these key laws and important mandates” and warned it could result in students "not receiving all of their required IEP services" or losing required access to nondisabled peers. Michelle also raised an insurance concern, describing a Michigan case in which an insurer successfully sought reimbursement from a school district for nursing services provided during the school day and saying that similar subrogation claims could follow if outside providers deliver services on campus.
"Schools have legal obligations under federal and state law," she said, referencing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and related duties to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment. Michelle argued that IEP teams, not a statutory mandate for outside providers, are the appropriate decisionmakers about whether ABA services are required in an educational setting.
Representatives on the committee pressed Michelle on whether the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) guidance, issued in May, should be made statutory. Representative Koontz asked whether the guidance, which is not binding, should instead be codified; Michelle responded that courts often give deference to administrative guidance but recommended observing how the guidance works in practice before changing law.
The committee then heard from MDE legislative liaison Olivia Ponti and two MDE experts: Rebecca McIntyre, assistant director in the Office of Special Education, and Amy Matthews of Grand Valley State University's START project. Rebecca said the guidance was developed by a multi‑stakeholder group, including school leaders, BCBAs, community mental health representatives and MDHHS staff, to help integrate school and clinical services so ABA "supplements education and does not replace it." Amy described ABA as a scientific discipline used both in clinical (often one‑to‑one) and school‑wide contexts, and said the guidance seeks to clarify roles, credentialing (BCBA/BCaBA/RBT) and expectations for collaboration.
MDE presenters emphasized several points repeatedly during their presentation and in questioning: a medical diagnosis of autism for insurance coverage is not identical to educational eligibility under IDEA; districts retain local control to set visitor or provider policies; parents can request IEP team meetings or pursue mediation and other due process options if they disagree with a district decision; and successful system change will require training and time — presenters said research suggests three to five years to see broad systems shifts.
Committee members asked whether guidance permits private ABA therapists to deliver medically necessary care onsite when an IEP team determines services are not required as part of FAPE. Rebecca said the IEP team process and local visitor/provider policies will govern such requests and that parents retain due process rights to contest decisions. On concerns that nondisabled students can secure MOUs for on‑site therapy while disabled students face greater barriers, MDE staff said the guidance contemplates parent requests and IEP/504 processes to address access and that districts must consider FERPA/HIPAA and liability issues when allowing providers into buildings.
On rollout, MDE acknowledged the guidance's initial dissemination was limited (a few trainings in June) and agreed broader outreach, including joint sessions with MDHHS and more formal dissemination at fall conferences, is needed.
The session did not produce a committee vote on House Bill 50‑44. Two public comment cards were filed in support of the bill (Steven Donatelli of Akoyo Behavioral Health and Angela Cater), but neither person spoke.
The committee left the record open for further consideration and directed staff and MDE to continue discussions and outreach. The panel did not take final action on HB 50‑44 during this meeting.
