facilities can only have one effect: reduced access for children and their families, leading to negative outcomes and increased costs.

• Indiana made the decision to significantly reduce reimbursement rates less than two years ago. These changes are still being implemented and should be allowed to have their desired effect.
• Additional cuts will make many facilities not economically viable, especially in rural communities where they are often needed most.

Arbitrary moratoriums ignore the natural supply and demand dynamics in a market economy. Artificial reductions in supply lead to increased demand and longer wait lists which increase costs reduce quality of care.Instead of pursuing policy that improves access and affordability of care for those families impacted by autism and developmental disorders, the new proposal is seeking to slash services and reduce the number of children receiving therapy.

It is not just the state slashing coverage and access. There is a clear trend toward the state and big insurance companies who are seemingly addressing their coverage shortfalls on the backs of children with autism or other developmental disorders and their families.

New regulations proposed by the Braun administration put politicians in charge of vital therapy for children – not clinicians or medical professionals in consultation with families.
The proposed rules seek to limit access to ABA services by arbitrarily capping the number of hours of therapy that a child can receive in their lifetime, even if there is a continued need as determined by a medical professional, in direct contradiction to established EPSDT guidelines.

The proposed regulations create new and burdensome supervision requirements for clinicians and medical professionals that double or triple staffing needs in some cases, creating an unfunded mandate that has no impact on the amount or quality of therapy provided.