ABSTRACT
In the wake of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, U.S. organizations that provide applied behavior analysis (ABA) programs to individuals with autism spectrum disorder have implemented a variety of safety precautions to minimize the spread of the virus, often shifting center-based services to the home or telehealth. Considered essential workers, ABA providers are exempt from government directives to close, so they have both the freedom and the great responsibility to make their own decisions about how best to keep their clients safe while continuing to provide medically necessary services. In the coming weeks and months, ABA providers will be faced with the decision about whether to reopen centers. This article does not address that decision, except to acknowledge the urgency to reopen, both to help clients and to remain solvent. Political rhetoric and contradictory public information further complicate this daunting decision. Because ABA providers do not have legal guidance to shift the burden of such decisions to local and state regulators, the burden is theirs alone. The unprecedented nature of the COVID-19 pandemic means that no decision is clearly wrong or right, and every decision has consequences. Although ABA providers do not have their own state guidance, many states have issued guidelines for childcare providers whose operations have continued throughout the pandemic. This article analyzes that guidance, identifies common variables potentially relevant to ABA organizations, highlights clinical considerations and procedural compliance, and provides ABA organizations with the tools to make the best decision for their clients, in their community, and on their timeline.
ABSTRACT
Individuals with limited English proficiency face more challenges accessing applied behavior analysis (ABA) than their English-speaking counterparts. Many federal and state laws have been enacted to ensure the civil rights of protected classes, and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, 2010) builds on those laws and explicitly establishes a cause of action (i.e., a basis to sue) against health care providers, including ABA providers, who discriminate against patients on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. A patient's language falls under the scope of national origin, and most health care providers, including behavior analysts who deliver ABA as medically necessary treatment, have a duty to ensure that patients who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) have the same access to the provider's services as English-speaking patients. Knowledge of this provision of the ACA is critical to its compliance and, more importantly, to ensuring that behavior analysts rise to the challenge that the goal of true diversity represents. Note: Many terms are used interchangeably to describe insurance carriers, insurance issuers, health plans, and managed care organizations, as well as practitioners of applied behavior analysis. In this article, insurance carriers, insurance issuers, health plans, and managed care organizations are referred to as payors, and practitioners of applied behavior analysis are referred to as behavior analysts or ABA providers.
ABSTRACT
In their 2016 article, "Navigating a Managed Care Peer Review: Guidance for Clinicians Using Applied Behavior Analysis [ABA] in the Treatment of Children on the Autism Spectrum," Papatola and Lustig provide an overview of the managed care process, discuss the medical necessity of ABA, and offer guidance to clinicians on how to navigate the managed care peer review process. Given that the authors are employed by a large international health insurance carrier and conduct peer reviews on behalf of that organization, this response seeks to provide guidance from both the clinical and public policy perspectives that reflect best practices in the field of autism treatment. This response is not written with the intention of providing or replacing legal advice; rather, this paper offers health care providers of ABA an essential understanding of some of the laws that govern and support their efforts to secure medically necessary treatment and the mechanisms in place with which to challenge decisions by managed care organizations, health plans, and health insurance issuers that may be contrary to best practices. Finally, suggestions are offered on how to navigate a peer review to ensure optimal outcomes and, when necessary, to lay the groundwork to overturn a funding source decision that does not reflect best practices or the standard of care in ABA-based autism treatment.
ABSTRACT
Ample research has shown that intensive applied behavior analysis (ABA) treatment produces robust outcomes for individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD); however, little is known about the relationship between treatment intensity and treatment outcomes. The current study was designed to evaluate this relationship. Participants included 726 children, ages 1.5 to 12 years old, receiving community-based behavioral intervention services. Results indicated a strong relationship between treatment intensity and mastery of learning objectives, where higher treatment intensity predicted greater progress. Specifically, 35% of the variance in mastery of learning objectives was accounted for by treatment hours using standard linear regression, and 60% of variance was accounted for using artificial neural networks. These results add to the existing support for higher intensity treatment for children with ASD.
