One of the most hotly debated measures during Oklahoma’s 2008 legislative session was Senate Bill 1537 — colloquially referred to as “Nick’s Law” — which would have required insurance companies doing business in Oklahoma to cover autism. Though the bill made it through the Senate, it did not make it out of committee in the House.

Autism is a brain-development disorder that affects about 6,000 Oklahoma children. It manifests itself as a pattern of symptoms of which the primary characteristics are problems with communication, limited interests and repetitive behavior. While autism is not curable, early intervention and treatment of the type that would be mandated under this bill have been shown to be important to the long-term life prospects of autistic children.

For proponents of an autism mandate, the existence of these clear benefits to autistic children makes the case for an autism mandate self-evident. But there is a potential downside to health-care mandates such as an autism mandate: They can drive up insurance costs and end up pricing people out of the market. The costs of autism coverage have to be borne by someone, and it is folly to think that the full incidence of any mandate will fall entirely on insurance company profits.

Some of the cost increase will be passed along to consumers in the form of higher premiums. This is not the real cost of the mandate, however, as this is just a transfer of resources. The real cost of the mandate will come from those individuals who are priced out of the market as a result of the higher premiums. Thus the size and impact of any proposed autism mandate is an important issue and a primary reason for careful study.

Another, more innovative, solution comes to mind after reading a May 30 story in The Oklahoman headlined “What Promise Does Ohio Hold for Autistic Boy From Oklahoma?” It seems that an Oklahoma family decided to respond to the failed passage of “Nick’s Law” by selling their home and moving to Ohio.

Why would they undertake such a drastic move? Because Ohio has a school voucher program for autistic children. In Ohio, parents of autistic children can choose to have their children educated through their local school district or through private special education programs. For those who choose an alternative school, up to $20,000 of taxpayer money follows the child.

While an autism scholarship program for Oklahoma would not address all the financial issues surrounding autism treatment, it would have several appealing qualities.

First, unlike a mandate, it does not harm others by crowding out private insurance.

Second, a tax-credit scholarship program would focus attention on the issue of early diagnosis and treatment. Thanks to a provision in Oklahoma’s constitution known as the Blaine Amendment, such a program in Oklahoma likely would need to be funded through a charitable tax credit rather than a voucher.

Third, a scholarship program provides needed flexibility for parents to seek and craft the best treatment solution for their child. Given the fact that autism is a bundle of symptoms of varying severity, the flexibility that choice allows seems especially important.

Fourth, any tax revenue lost because of charitable donations to an autism scholarship program would be, at least in part, offset by the fact that students using the scholarships would no longer be enrolled in the public schools.

Economics teaches us there are few “free lunches” when it comes to public policy, which often involves trading off the benefits received by one group against the costs imposed on another. Nick’s Law, for example, raised concern and uncertainty among policymakers about who might be harmed by rising insurance costs.

A tax credit for donations to scholarship programs geared to autistic children, however, might be close to a free lunch for the reasons described. Though it’s no panacea, it is a simple and elegant solution that would help a large number of families.



JOSHUA HALL is an assistant professor of economics at Beloit College. For more information on school choice for special-needs children, visit Choice Remarks (okschoolchoice.blogspot.com).