Search

Introduction: Autism mandates are laws that require commercial insurers to cover certain evidence-based treatments for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). The purpose of this study was to review state variability in autism insurance mandates and the benefits they cover and to discuss recommendations for research and policy to improve ASD services across states., Methods: Data were extracted from 2001 to 2020 from all 50 states plus the District of Columbia (N = 51) from policy text. News articles and websites of ASD advocacy organizations were also reviewed to ensure inclusion of the most recent policy changes. Descriptive statistics and heatmaps were used to characterize the autism mandate landscape and visualize variability in benefit parameters across states., Results: Autism mandates vary greatly in benefit parameters across US states, but there is a common set of benefits that most states have adopted. These include coverage of provider-recommended ASD services except for medical equipment, coverage up to an age limit of 18 to 21, an annual dollar limit of $36,000 with no restriction on the number of hours or visits, no lifetime cap on benefits, and requirement of BCBA® certification or its equivalent for providers of ABA., Discussion: There is a need for continued research evaluating the impact of autism mandates and benefit parameters on access to care, service utilization, and clinical outcomes for the ASD population. Stakeholder engagement and understanding the impact of autism mandates on clinical and patient-centered outcomes may provide direction for policy advocacy and public health initiatives.

Objectives: Most states have passed insurance mandates requiring health plans to cover services for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Research reveals that these mandates increased treated prevalence, service use, and spending on ASD-related care. As employer-sponsored insurance shifts toward high-deductible health plans (HDHPs), it is important to understand how mandates affect children with ASD in HDHPs relative to traditional, low-deductible plans., Methods: Insurance claims for 2008-2012 for children covered by 3 large US insurers (United Healthcare, Aetna, and Humana) available through the Health Care Cost Institute were used to compare the effects of mandates on ASD-related spending for children in HDHPs and traditional health plans., Results: Relative to children in traditional plans, mandates were associated with higher average monthly spending increases for children in HDHPs. Mandate-attributable spending differences between children enrolled in HDHPs relative to traditional plans were $77 for ASD-specific services (95% confidence interval [CI]: $10 to $144), $125 for outpatient health services (95% CI: $26 to $223), and $144 for all health services (95% CI: $36 to $253). These spending differentials were driven by differences in plan spending and not out-of-pocket (OOP) spending., Conclusions: Spending on ASD-related services attributable to autism mandates was higher among children in HDHPs, but higher spending did not translate into a greater OOP burden. For families with consistently high health care expenditures on ASD-related services, high-deductible products may be worth considering in the context of mandate laws. Families in mandate states with children with ASD enrolled in HDHPs were able to increase service use without paying more OOP., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2019 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

The study of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in the United States has identified a growing prevalence of the disorder across the country, a high economic burden for necessary treatment, and important gaps in insurance for individuals with autism. Confronting these facts, states have moved quickly in recent years to introduce mandates that insurers provide coverage for autism care. This study analyzes these autism insurance mandates and demonstrates that while states have moved swiftly to introduce them, the generosity of the benefits they mandate insurers provide varies dramatically across states. Furthermore, our research finds that controlling for policy need, interest group activity, economic circumstances, the insurance environment, and other factors, the passage of these mandates and differences in their generosity are driven by the ideology of state residents and politicians-with more generous benefits in states with more liberal citizens and increased Democratic control of state government. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for the study of health policy, politics, and autism in America., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: The health care costs associated with treating autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in children can be substantial. State-level mandates that require insurers to cover ASD-specific services may lessen the financial burden families face by shifting health care spending to insurers., Methods: We estimated the effects of ASD mandates on out-of-pocket spending, insurer spending, and the share of total spending paid out of pocket for ASD-specific services. We used administrative claims data from 2008 to 2012 from 3 commercial insurers, and took a difference-in-differences approach in which children who were subject to mandates were compared with children who were not. Because mandates have heterogeneous effects based on the extent of children's service use, we performed subsample analyses by calculating quintiles based on average monthly total spending on ASD-specific services. The sample included 106 977 children with ASD across 50 states., Results: Mandates increased out-of-pocket spending but decreased the share of spending paid out of pocket for ASD-specific services on average. The effects were driven largely by children in the highest-spending quintile, who experienced an average increase of $35 per month in out-of-pocket spending ( P < .001) and a 4 percentage point decline in the share of spending paid out of pocket ( P < .001)., Conclusions: ASD mandates shifted health care spending for ASD-specific services from families to insurers. However, families in the highest-spending quintile still spent an average of >$200 per month out of pocket on these services. To help ease their financial burden, policies in which children with higher service use are targeted may be warranted., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2019 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Due to the prevalence, severity, and costs associated with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs), it has become a public health issue. In response, state governments have adopted ASD-specific private insurance mandates requiring coverage of ASD screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Despite rapid uptake of these laws, differences exist in the type and levels of coverage, especially for allied health services including occupational therapy. We piloted a structured legal research methodology to code ASD insurance mandates that impact allied health service provisions. State private insurance mandates were obtained from WestlawNext. A coding methodology was piloted on 14 states and included variables for age and service limits, treatments covered, and medical necessity. Coding methods were feasible and highly reliable among raters. Ten of 12 states had a coverage mandate, many with specific provisions for allied health providers. A full analysis of all 50 states is warranted to identify provisions affecting allied health providers serving individuals with ASD.

Importance: Most states have passed insurance mandates requiring commercial health plans to cover services for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Insurers have expressed concerns that these mandates will increase the number of children diagnosed with ASD (treated prevalence) and therefore increase costs associated with their care. To our knowledge, no published studies have addressed this question., Objective: To examine whether implementing ASD insurance mandates increases the number of commercially insured children diagnosed with ASD., Design, Setting, and Participants: A difference-in-differences study was performed using inpatient and outpatient health insurance claims for children 21 years or younger covered by 3 of the largest insurers in the United States-United HealthCare, Aetna, and Humana-from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2012, made available through the Health Care Cost Institute. Data analysis was conducted from March 15 to August 11, 2015., Exposures: Implementation of an ASD insurance mandate in a child's state of residence., Main Outcomes and Measures: The treated prevalence of ASD, measured as a binary indicator of whether a given child in a given calendar month had at least 1 health care service claim associated with a diagnosis of ASD., Results: The adjusted treated prevalence among 1 046 850 eligible children (575 299 male [55.0%]) in states with ASD insurance mandates was 1.8 per 1000 and 1.6 per 1000 among children in states without such a mandate (P = .006). The mean increase in treated prevalence attributable to the mandates was 0.21 per 1000 children during the study period (95% CI, 0.11-0.30; P < .001). Mandates in place longer had a larger effect on treated prevalence. The mean increase in treated prevalence of ASD attributable to the mandate was 0.17 per 1000 children (95% CI, 0.09-0.24; P < .001) in the first year following implementation, 0.27 per 1000 children (95% CI, 0.13-0.42; P < .001) in the second year, and 0.29 per 1000 children (95% CI, 0.15-0.42; P < .001) 3 years or more following implementation., Conclusions and Relevance: Implementing state ASD insurance mandates resulted in increases in the number of children diagnosed with ASD; these numbers increased each year after implementation. Even 3 years or more after implementation, however, treated prevalence of ASD was much lower than community prevalence estimates. This finding may allay concerns that mandates will substantially increase insurance costs, but it suggests that many commercially insured children with ASD remain undiagnosed or are being treated only through publicly funded systems.