A child surrounded by puzzle pieces, representing autism, with a healthcare expenditure graph in the background.

Autism Mandates: How Insurance Changes Impact Healthcare Spending for Children

Theo Raines in Health & Wellness August 2025 • 4 min read.

"Discover how autism insurance mandates affect healthcare costs and access to care for families, and what it means for your child's treatment."

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) affects many children, creating substantial challenges for families and healthcare systems. The increasing prevalence of ASD has led states to enact autism insurance mandates, requiring private insurers to cover screening, diagnosis, and treatment. But what happens after these mandates go into effect? How do healthcare expenditures change, and who benefits most?

A recent study published in 'Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders' dives deep into these questions, analyzing seven years of insurance claims data from Pennsylvania, a state that implemented its autism mandate in mid-2009. By comparing healthcare expenditures before and after the mandate, and across different types of insurance plans, the study reveals significant shifts in how autism care is funded and accessed.

This article breaks down the study's findings, offering insights into the real-world effects of autism insurance mandates. Whether you're a parent, healthcare provider, or policy maker, understanding these changes is crucial for ensuring that children with ASD receive the timely and comprehensive care they need.

The Autism Mandate Effect: A Closer Look at Healthcare Spending

A child surrounded by puzzle pieces, representing autism, with a healthcare expenditure graph in the background.

The Pennsylvania study examined data from 2006 to 2012, focusing on children diagnosed with ASD and continuously enrolled in insurance plans. Researchers looked at total healthcare expenditures (all medical costs) and ASD-related expenditures (costs specifically for autism treatment). By comparing these figures before and after Pennsylvania's mandate, they uncovered some striking trends.

One of the most significant findings was the sharp increase in post-mandate expenditures for groups subject to the autism mandate. These groups, primarily those with large employer-sponsored insurance plans, saw an 87% increase in total healthcare spending, jumping from $7,754 in 2008 to $14,486 in 2010. In contrast, exempt groups (self-insured plans, small employer plans, and individual plans) experienced a more modest 27% increase.

Large Employer Plans: Experienced the most substantial increase in spending post-mandate.
Self-Insured Plans: Showed a moderate increase, likely due to voluntary coverage of ASD services by some employers.
Small Employer and Individual Plans: Saw minimal changes in spending, reflecting their exempt status from the mandate.
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP): Had variable costs due to small sample sizes, with no clear pattern after the mandate.

Further analysis revealed that the increase in spending was primarily driven by outpatient services, rather than inpatient or drug costs. This suggests that the autism mandate led to greater access to therapies like Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) and other behavioral health treatments commonly delivered in outpatient settings.

Policy Implications and Future Directions

The study underscores the significant impact of autism insurance mandates on healthcare spending and access to care. By demonstrating how spending patterns shift after a mandate goes into effect, the findings can inform policy decisions and help ensure that resources are allocated effectively. While the Pennsylvania mandate has led to increased spending and improved access for many children with ASD, disparities remain. Exempt groups, such as those with small employer plans or self-insured plans, may not benefit to the same extent, highlighting the need for further policy adjustments to ensure equitable access to care.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

What is an autism insurance mandate, and why is it important?

An autism insurance mandate is a law that requires insurance companies to cover the costs of screening, diagnosis, and treatment for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). These mandates aim to ensure that individuals with ASD have access to the necessary healthcare services. The significance of these mandates lies in their potential to improve access to early intervention and ongoing therapies, such as Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), which can significantly enhance the quality of life for individuals with ASD and their families. However, the impact can vary depending on the type of insurance plan, with some plans being exempt from the mandate.

What specific data was analyzed in the study to understand the impact of autism insurance mandates?

The study focused on healthcare expenditures, which include all medical costs, and ASD-related expenditures, which are specifically for autism treatment. By examining these figures before and after the implementation of Pennsylvania's autism mandate, researchers could identify changes in spending patterns. This is important because it helps to understand how insurance mandates affect the financial aspects of autism care, including the overall costs and the specific services that are being utilized more or less frequently. The study revealed that spending increased significantly for groups subject to the mandate, particularly for outpatient services.

Which insurance plans saw the biggest changes in spending after the autism mandate, and what does this tell us?

Large employer-sponsored insurance plans experienced the most substantial increase in healthcare spending after the autism mandate was implemented. This increase was primarily driven by greater utilization of outpatient services, indicating improved access to therapies like Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA). The significance of this finding is that it highlights how mandates can effectively improve access to necessary treatments for individuals with ASD who are covered by these types of plans. It also shows how the financial burden on families can shift, with more costs being covered by insurance rather than out-of-pocket.

What is Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), and how did the autism mandate affect access to it?

Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) is a type of therapy commonly used in the treatment of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). It focuses on improving specific behaviors, such as communication, social skills, and adaptive learning skills, through the application of behavioral principles. The study showed that the autism mandate led to greater access to outpatient services, which include ABA therapy. This is significant because ABA is considered an evidence-based practice for treating ASD, and increased access can lead to better outcomes for individuals with ASD. The policy implications suggest the importance of supporting and expanding access to ABA therapy through insurance coverage.

How were different types of insurance plans affected by the autism mandate, and what does that mean for people with autism?

Exempt groups, such as those with self-insured plans, small employer plans, and individual plans, experienced more modest increases in healthcare spending compared to groups subject to the autism mandate. This is likely because these plans are not required to comply with the mandate, leading to disparities in coverage and access to care. This finding highlights the importance of considering the different types of insurance plans when evaluating the impact of autism mandates. To ensure equitable access to care, policy adjustments may be needed to address the disparities experienced by exempt groups, possibly through incentives or alternative funding mechanisms.