It's About Time for Autism Reform Legislation in Utah.

Moore (2015) wrote a position paper that endorsed Utah’s new insurance law. The law forces private insurers to pay for ABA for children with autism.

The paper urged other states to copy Utah’s rule so more families can afford treatment.

The study did not collect new data. It simply celebrated Utah’s reform and called it a model for the nation.

The author argued that coverage laws remove the biggest financial barrier to ABA.

Johnson et al. (2009) blazed the same trail. That paper told advocates to use the AAIDD manual to win policy fights for people with intellectual disability. Moore (2015) used the same playbook, but aimed it at autism and ABA funding.

Kornack et al. (2019) spotlights a second barrier: language access. Even if insurance pays, families who speak little English still need interpreters. Together the papers show that money and language can both block ABA, so laws must fix both.

Travers et al. (2025) defends ABA against critics who call it coercive. The Utah paper defends ABA in a different way—by securing insurance dollars. Both papers arm BCBAs for different battles: public image and public funding.

You can copy Utah’s language when you testify in your own state. Bring the bill text to lawmakers and show how coverage saved Utah families thousands. Pair it with Kornack et al. (2019) to add interpreter requirements, so the new law helps every family, not just English speakers.