By Matt Harrington, BCBA · Behaviorist Book Club · Research-backed answers for behavior analysts
First, review the denial to understand the stated rationale. If the issue is insufficient documentation, submit additional clinical data supporting your recommendation. If the denial reflects a clinical disagreement, request a peer-to-peer review to discuss the case directly with the payer's clinical reviewer. Prepare for this conversation with organized data, a clear clinical rationale, and reference to the payer's own medical necessity criteria. If the peer-to-peer review does not resolve the issue, file a formal appeal. Throughout this process, inform the client or caregiver about the situation, their rights to appeal, and the potential implications of reduced services.
Structure your requests to address the payer's decision-making criteria directly. Include clear operational definitions of target behaviors, quantitative baseline data, measurable treatment goals with defined mastery criteria, a description of evidence-based procedures to be used, the clinical rationale for the requested service intensity, and progress data from the current treatment period. Use language accessible to non-behavioral professionals while maintaining clinical accuracy. Reference the payer's published medical necessity criteria and explain how your treatment plan meets each criterion. Avoid jargon that obscures your clinical reasoning.
The Ethics Code requires that you not abandon a client whose services are being terminated. Your obligations include informing the client and caregiver of the termination and its clinical implications, pursuing all available appeal options, assisting with transition to alternative funding sources or providers, providing enough lead time for the family to arrange alternative services, and documenting your efforts to maintain service continuity. If you believe the termination is clinically inappropriate, you should advocate through formal channels while simultaneously planning for the possibility that the termination will stand.
Prepare thoroughly by organizing your clinical data, identifying the specific points of disagreement, and anticipating the reviewer's objections. Present your case using the payer's own medical necessity criteria as your framework, showing how your client's clinical data meet those criteria. Be professional and collaborative rather than adversarial. Listen to the reviewer's concerns and address them directly with data. If the reviewer raises valid points about your documentation or clinical approach, acknowledge them and explain how you will address them. Document the conversation and its outcome immediately afterward.
Evaluate the payer's requirement against your clinical judgment and ethical obligations. If the required tool provides useful supplementary information and does not harm the client, using it alongside your preferred assessment methods may be the pragmatic choice. If the required tool is inappropriate for the client's age, diagnosis, or clinical needs, document your concerns in writing and propose an alternative that meets the payer's information needs. The Ethics Code requires you to select assessments that are appropriate for the client, so you should not use a tool that is clinically inappropriate simply because a payer requests it.
Be transparent and factual. Explain what services have been authorized and how they differ from what you have recommended. Describe the options available: appeal, supplementary funding sources, or modified treatment within the authorized parameters. Explain the potential clinical implications of reduced services without creating unnecessary alarm. Provide families with information about their appeal rights and assist them with the appeal process if appropriate. Document these conversations. Families need accurate information to make informed decisions about their child's care.
Build authorization-ready documentation into your routine clinical workflow rather than treating it as a separate administrative task. Include quantitative data in every progress note. Write treatment goals with measurable criteria that payers can evaluate. Document medical necessity at every treatment plan review by explicitly connecting your clinical data to the payer's published criteria. Maintain detailed records of all communications with payers, including dates, names, and content of conversations. Create and maintain templates for authorization requests and appeals that can be efficiently customized for each client. Thorough, organized documentation is your strongest tool in funding disputes.
Escalate when internal appeals have been exhausted and you believe the denial is clinically inappropriate, when the payer's denial criteria appear to conflict with published regulations or state mandates, when you identify a pattern of systematic denials that affects multiple clients, or when the payer's practices create barriers to access that may violate applicable insurance regulations. External options include filing complaints with the state insurance department, requesting independent external review where available, connecting the family with legal advocacy organizations, and reporting patterns to professional organizations that engage in policy advocacy.
Organizations can provide dedicated authorization and billing staff who handle administrative aspects of funding engagement, develop standardized templates for authorization requests and appeals, track authorization outcomes and denial patterns to identify systemic issues, provide training on payer-specific requirements and effective advocacy strategies, allocate protected time for clinicians to complete authorization documentation, and create peer support structures where clinicians can consult on difficult funding cases. When the administrative burden of funding source engagement falls entirely on clinicians, it competes with clinical time and contributes to burnout.
Systemic advocacy extends beyond individual case appeals. Behavior analysts can participate in professional organizations that engage in legislative and regulatory advocacy, provide public comments on proposed insurance regulations, share data on denial patterns with advocacy groups, participate in workgroups that develop medical necessity criteria, educate legislators and regulators about ABA service needs, and collaborate with other healthcare providers facing similar payer challenges. Collective professional action on payer policies affects more clients than individual case-level advocacy, though both are necessary.
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Ready to go deeper? This course covers this topic with structured learning objectives and CEU credit.
Behavioral Funding Source Engagement — CASP CEU Center · 1 BACB Ethics CEUs · $
Take This Course →1 BACB Ethics CEUs · $ · CASP CEU Center
Research-backed educational guide with practice recommendations
Side-by-side comparison with clinical decision framework
All behavior-analytic intervention is individualized. The information on this page is for educational purposes and does not constitute clinical advice. Treatment decisions should be informed by the best available published research, individualized assessment, and obtained with the informed consent of the client or their legal guardian. Behavior analysts are responsible for practicing within the boundaries of their competence and adhering to the BACB Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts.