In August 2026, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released its State Medicaid & Children’s Health Insurance Program Applied Behavior Analysis Toolkit. The resource is intended to help state Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) agencies make decisions about the delivery and oversight of ABA services.
The toolkit arrives amid substantial growth in ABA utilization and spending, as payors increase their focus on the prevention of fraud, waste, and abuse. For providers, however, the most important takeaway is that the toolkit does not itself introduce new requirements or change existing policies. It offers a consolidated location to find pertinent resources.
How much this toolkit actually changes will come down to individual states and managed care organizations; whether they adopt these suggested practices, and how. That means the real impact may develop gradually and may look pretty different from state to state.
What Is The CMS ABA Toolkit?
The CMS ABA Toolkit is a 173-page resource designed to help state Medicaid and CHIP agencies evaluate their approach to ABA coverage and oversight. It covers the full continuum of care, from autism spectrum diagnosis to utilization management and program integrity.
Think of it as a decision-making resource: not a new law, regulation, Medicaid policy, or clinical standard of care. It's a gathering of over 200 evidence-based articles, pooling background information about our science, checklists, and suggested practices that states can draw on as they evaluate their own policies and procedures.
Nothing here changes overnight: any operational changes would still have to come through individual states or managed care organizations, and given how differently states already approach ABA benefit design, we should expect that adoption will look different from one location to the next.
Why Did CMS Develop the ABA Toolkit?
CMS developed the toolkit to give states a common source of background information and suggested practices as they evaluate their Medicaid ABA policies. It also responds to rapid growth in ABA utilization and spending. According to CMS, from 2021 to 2025, the number of children with an ASD diagnosis receiving ABA services increased by 189%, while related spending increased by 421%.
Fraud, waste, and abuse also show up as a growing program-integrity concern in the toolkit. It points to recent federal audits that found improper ABA payments cases where states hadn't given providers clear enough guidance on billing and documentation in the first place. That's the real takeaway: the problem isn't only about bad actors. It's also about gaps in oversight, and the need for clearer expectations on both sides, enough to protect access to medically necessary care while still safeguarding Medicaid resources.
Key Themes for ABA Providers to Watch for
Individualized Treatment Intensity
Treatment intensity and dosage aren't new topics in ABA. There's no shortage of literature discussing them. What's often missing, though, is guidance practitioners can actually put to use in a session or a treatment plan. The toolkit steps into that gap, at least as a first pass.
It emphasizes the importance of individualized treatment intensity, noting that ABA may range from five to 40 hours per week depending on the learner's needs. At the same time, CMS states plainly that 40 hours per week is not a best practice. Its rationale, though, focuses less on clinical judgment and more on audit and billing concerns: children need time for activities of daily living such as eating, toileting, napping during which ABA services generally shouldn't be billed. From there, CMS suggests states consider requiring a break in service and billing after a specified number of consecutive units.
The toolkit also offers an example of a best practice for determining intensity, aligning roughly 10, 20, and 30 weekly hours with Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 support needs, respectively. But in the same breath, it acknowledges there's no consensus on a set number of treatment hours and it doesn't cite a source for this specific recommendation.
Clinicians can look to recent literature from Peterson et al. (2024) and Samelson et al. (2025) to start to review literature on treatment intensity and dosage, while these articles do not give clear guidance they are a nice evidence-base which can offer considerations in dosage. In the realm of treatment intensity, the toolkit gets specific: it's offering an example, not quite a standard which readers should consider.
The central takeaway is that CMS recommends high-intensity services not be authorized by default. Instead, the requested hours should be supported by an individualized treatment plan that clearly documents the learner’s assessed needs, goals, and clinical justification.
Treatment Planning and Medical Necessity
The toolkit emphasizes individualized treatment plans that clearly connect a learner’s assessed needs to the services being recommended.
CMS recommends that treatment plans include:
- Assessment results, established baselines, and a reassessment schedule
- Measurable, functionally relevant goals for the learner and caregiver
- Planned treatment activities, direct ABA hours, and anticipated treatment duration
- Methods for monitoring progress and modifying treatment when needed
- Transition and discharge planning
Treatment Plan Red Flags
The toolkit also identifies documentation patterns that may warrant additional review. These include:
- Overlapping treatments
- Lack of adaptation to personal needs
- Excessive service hours and excessive service hours that continue without documented improvement in outcomes
- Identical documentation across individuals by provider or clinic
- Reevaluations that do not reflect progress or without adjustment to care plan
- Participation in group therapy that accounts for more than 10 percent of treatment time • Interventions and goals that are inappropriate for the age of the individual
- High staffing ratios without clinical justification (e.g., two ABA providers working with one child at a time)
- Lack of parent/caregiver engagement
Reassessment and Outcome Measurement
The toolkit emphasizes that medical necessity should be evaluated throughout treatment. CMS suggests that states require at least one of these skill-based assessments to identify goals and measure progress.
- ABLLS-R
- AFLS
- EFL
- PEAK
- VB-MAPP
The toolkit refers to these tools as standardized outcome assessments. However, they are more accurately classified as criterion-referenced skill assessments. They measure performance against defined skills rather than comparing the learner with a normative population.
Caregiver Involvement
Caregiver involvement is described by CMS as a critical component to success in ABA. This relates back to one of the 7 Dimensions of ABA, generality and applied. Engaging caregivers ensures that all stakeholders are aware of treatment goals and client needs.
But the toolkit offers guidance here; its own suggested practice is specific: states should implement requirements for expected parent and caregiver involvement, communicated clearly, while still allowing room for extenuating circumstances. CMS isn't applying a one-size-fits-all participation; it's asking for expectations clear enough to be defensible, and flexible enough to support the reality of family life for our clients.
That same flexibility shows up in how the toolkit treats informed choice; it recommends that providers offer parents and caregivers information on forms of treatment other than ABA. The other forms are not clearly specified and should be further reviewed. Participation is outlined as supporting families understanding and choosing their path forward.
There's a harder edge to this, too. On the program integrity side, the toolkit lists a lack of caregiver engagement as one of the documentation red flags auditors watch for, alongside excessive hours and reevaluations showing no progress. Caregiver involvement is something reviewers may look for as evidence of legitimate, individualized care.
Given all that, it's not surprising the toolkit highlights flexible approaches to engagement, such as self-paced digital training options, as a practical way to increase caregiver engagement with busy families.
Preventing Fraud, Waste, and Abuse
Preventing fraud, waste, and abuse is a major focus of the CMS ABA Toolkit, reflecting findings from recent audits of Medicaid-funded ABA services. But CMS makes an important distinction: An improper payment does not necessarily indicate intentional fraud. As identified in the state Medicaid audits, improper payments also often result from things like documentation gaps.
The toolkit provides strategies for states to prevent and respond to potential fraud, waste, and abuse. They encourage states and managed care organizations to use claims data and analytics to identify patterns that may warrant additional review, such as:
- Unusually high service hours
- High technician-to-supervisor ratios
- Rapid billing increases following provider enrollment
- Claims concentrated around certain supervision codes or modifiers
- Maximum hours billed for a large percentage of clients
- Excessive reliance on telehealth
For providers, the emphasis on fraud prevention signals the possibility of greater scrutiny around whether billed services were appropriately delivered, medically necessary, and supported by complete documentation. Maintaining accurate records and strong internal review processes will be increasingly important as states and payors consider whether to adopt these recommendations.
What Does the CMS ABA Toolkit Mean for Providers?
The CMS ABA Toolkit doesn’t immediately change existing coverage, authorization, documentation, or billing requirements at the state or federal level. Providers should continue following the policies established by their current state Medicaid programs and managed care organizations.
Over time, states and managed care organizations will determine whether and how to incorporate the toolkit’s suggested practices. Any changes that are made will likely differ across states.
For now, providers should monitor updates from their state Medicaid agencies and managed care organizations. This is also a good opportunity to evaluate documentation standards and billing workflows to ensure they are complete, consistent, and aligned with current payor requirements. Having strong processes in place will make it easier to respond to future policy changes without disrupting care or day-to-day operations.
Posted in Review
You may also like...
Related information and stories
ABA Is Not Broken. But We Need to Fix What We Can’t See.
For more than two decades, I’ve experienced applied behavior analysis (ABA) from two deeply connected perspectives. As the father of a 22-year-old son with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), I’ve watched him benefit from behavioral interventions throughout…
When Oversight Comes for Your Industry, Documentation Is Your Defense
What the OIG audit series means for ABA providers – and why outcomes-based care isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s now a compliance imperative. The Wake-Up Call As…
What Payors Actually Want From ABA Providers
Over the last several years, as ABA has integrated into the medical model of care, providers have experienced a clear shift in payor expectations. Increased claim denials, more rigorous authorization…