By Matt Harrington, BCBA · Behaviorist Book Club · Research-backed answers for behavior analysts
MHPAEA requires that health plans offering mental health and substance use disorder benefits apply financial requirements and treatment limitations that are no more restrictive than those applied to analogous medical and surgical benefits. For ABA providers, this means that prior authorization requirements, visit limits, medical necessity criteria, and network adequacy standards applied to ABA services must be benchmarked against comparable requirements for physical health benefits like physical therapy or other rehabilitative services. If a plan requires extensive documentation for ABA authorization but not for comparable physical treatments, this disparity may constitute a parity violation.
SB 855 goes beyond MHPAEA by mandating actual coverage — not just parity of coverage — for all mental health and substance use disorders defined in the DSM. Because MHPAEA only requires equal treatment of whatever coverage a plan offers, a plan with minimal mental health benefits can technically comply with MHPAEA while still providing very limited coverage. SB 855 closes this loophole for California state-regulated plans by requiring coverage for all DSM-defined conditions using evidence-based treatments, providing a direct legal basis to challenge categorical exclusions of ABA services for autism.
SB 855 applies to California state-regulated health insurance plans — specifically fully insured commercial plans regulated by the California Department of Managed Health Care or the California Department of Insurance. It does not apply to self-funded employer plans governed by ERISA, which are exempt from state insurance mandates. This distinction is practically important: many employees of large companies have self-funded plans, meaning SB 855's coverage mandates do not protect them. For those plans, MHPAEA remains the primary federal protection. Identifying the plan type is the essential first step in any coverage advocacy situation.
Nonquantitative treatment limitations (NQTLs) are coverage restrictions that are not expressed as a simple number but instead take the form of processes, standards, or criteria. Examples relevant to ABA include prior authorization requirements, step therapy protocols, medical necessity criteria, and network adequacy standards. MHPAEA requires that the processes and criteria used to apply NQTLs to mental health benefits be comparable to those applied to medical and surgical benefits. NQTLs have been the primary mechanism through which plans unlawfully restrict ABA coverage while technically complying with quantitative parity requirements.
BCBAs can play a critical supporting role in insurance appeals without providing legal advice. This includes writing clear medical necessity letters that address the specific clinical basis for denial, providing treatment documentation that demonstrates progress and the continued need for services, and helping families understand the appeals process. BCBAs should document functional impairments resulting from the diagnosis, specify treatment goals tied to remediating those impairments, and provide evidence-based rationale for the requested intensity. Connecting families with insurance advocacy organizations and state regulatory agencies (DHMC or CDI) for external review is also part of comprehensive advocacy support.
Independent Medical Review (IMR) is an external review process administered by the California Department of Managed Health Care for HMO plans, allowing enrollees to have clinical coverage denials reviewed by independent medical experts who are not affiliated with the health plan. IMR decisions are binding on the health plan. IMR is available after a plan's internal appeals process has been exhausted or when the plan fails to meet required timelines. Historically, IMR has been favorable for ABA services in California, with independent reviewers frequently overturning denials of ABA for autism. The DHMC website provides the IMR application and process details.
BCBAs should maintain comprehensive clinical records that document the functional basis for ABA services. This includes formal assessments identifying specific behavioral deficits and excesses, treatment plans with measurable goals tied to functional outcomes, session data demonstrating progress or the rationale for continued services, and any prior authorization denials with the stated clinical rationale. Tracking denial rates by insurer, CPT code, and client demographics over time generates patterns that support both individual appeals and systemic advocacy. Denial letters should be retained and analyzed to identify legally challengeable bases for denial.
Self-funded employer plans — where the employer bears the financial risk of healthcare claims rather than purchasing insurance — are governed by ERISA and are exempt from state insurance mandates including SB 855. These plans are subject to MHPAEA. Fully insured plans — where an employer purchases insurance coverage from a licensed insurer — are subject to both state mandates and MHPAEA. For families enrolled in self-funded plans, the absence of SB 855 protections means fewer categorical coverage guarantees, though MHPAEA's parity requirements still apply. The plan's Summary Plan Description should indicate whether it is self-funded.
Significant MHPAEA enforcement developments have strengthened protections in recent years. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 required health plans to conduct and document comparative analyses of NQTLs applied to mental health versus medical benefits, and to provide these analyses to regulators and plan participants upon request. The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Treasury have issued guidance indicating that deficient comparative analyses — those that fail to demonstrate genuine parity — can themselves constitute violations. This has shifted the burden toward plans to affirmatively demonstrate compliance rather than requiring advocates to prove discrimination.
California has two primary insurance regulatory agencies relevant to ABA coverage disputes. The Department of Managed Health Care regulates HMO plans, while the California Department of Insurance regulates PPO, EPO, and indemnity plans. Both agencies accept complaints from enrollees and providers regarding coverage denials that may violate state law, including SB 855. Filing a complaint triggers regulatory investigation that can result in the plan being required to cover denied services. BCBAs can support families in filing complaints by providing clinical documentation and a clear narrative of the denial timeline. Regulatory complaints are separate from and do not preclude private legal action.
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.
Mental Health Parity, Applied Behavior Analysis and SB 855: What Providers Need to Know — Lorri Unumb · 1 BACB General CEUs · $0
Take This Course →1 BACB General CEUs · $0 · BehaviorLive
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.