State insurance parity legislation for autism services and family financial burden.
State autism insurance parity laws cut the chance families spend >$500 yearly on autism services by nearly 30%.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Parish et al. (2012) compared families living in states with autism insurance parity laws to families in states without them. They used insurance records to see who paid more than $500 per year out-of-pocket for autism care.
What they found
Families under parity mandates were about 28-29% less likely to spend over $500 a year on their child's autism services. The law shifted costs from families to insurers.
How this fits with other research
Tonnsen et al. (2016) extends the story: after parity passed, states still used very different Medicaid waiver rules, so coverage stayed uneven. Viefhaus et al. (2020) shows the same pain point in Latin America, where 35% of families call cost their top barrier.
Nord et al. (2024) looks like a contradiction: kids on public insurance had parents with almost 3× higher odds of job loss. The difference is population — Susan et al. mixed all insured families, while Derek et al. studied only public-insurance families whose children often have more complex needs. Parity cuts bills, but it does not solve caregiving demands that pull parents out of work.
Xu et al. (2026) echoes the burden theme in China, where lost wages and non-medical costs eclipse medical bills. Together the papers say: insurance parity helps, yet indirect costs and state variation remain.
Why it matters
You can tell families that state parity laws likely lower their direct therapy bills, but you should also check each state's Medicaid waiver details and plan for hidden costs like lost income. When you write treatment plans, budget for parent training or respite that keeps caregivers in their jobs.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Review the family's insurance card and state waiver list — confirm which ABA codes are fully covered before the next auths.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We examined the association between states' legislative mandates that private insurance cover autism services and the health care-related financial burden reported by families of children with autism. Child and family data were drawn from the National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs (N = 2,082 children with autism). State policy characteristics were taken from public sources. The 3 outcomes were whether a family had any out-of-pocket health care expenditures during the past year for their child with autism, the expenditure amount, and expenditures as a proportion of family income. We modeled the association between states' autism service mandates and families' financial burden, adjusting for child-, family-, and state-level characteristics. Overall, 78% of families with a child with autism reported having any health care expenditures for their child for the prior 12 months. Among these families, 54% reported expenditures of more than $500, with 34% spending more than 3% of their income. Families living in states that enacted legislation mandating coverage of autism services were 28% less likely to report spending more than $500 for their children's health care costs, net of child and family characteristics. Families living in states that enacted parity legislation mandating coverage of autism services were 29% less likely to report spending more than $500 for their children's health care costs, net of child and family characteristics. This study offers preliminary evidence in support of advocates' arguments that requiring private insurers to cover autism services will reduce families' financial burdens associated with their children's health care expenses.
Intellectual and developmental disabilities, 2012 · doi:10.1352/1934-9556-50.3.190