ABA Centers of America Cut Off by Optum, Lays Off Staff

A Restructuring Tied to Optum

FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA – For five years, ABA Centers of America touted its growth as proof that an autism therapy company could expand without private equity. This month, it cut staff, and payer Optum ended its relationship with the company.

The layoffs surfaced on June 12, when employees in various roles posted on social media that their jobs had been eliminated. The company declined to detail the layoffs. “We continue to operate as usual and remain focused on providing rapid access to high-quality autism care,” a spokesperson said, adding that ABA Centers “regularly evaluates organizational needs and makes necessary adjustments” and that its “growth, client demand, and operations remain on track.”

The two events seem connected. According to several industry sources, Optum will no longer engage with ABA Centers of America. ABA Centers did not respond to questions about Optum’s decision.

The Model Behind the Growth

Loss of a payer matters because of the ABA Centers’ growth model. Founded in 2020 in Fort Lauderdale, the company grew to over 1,500 employees by 2023, according to court filings. It ranked No. 5 on the 2024 Inc. 5000 list of the fastest-growing private companies, making it the top behavioral health company that year. Its revenue was estimated at $250–$500 million in 2025. In March 2026, it reported 586% revenue growth from 2021 to 2024, earning No. 15 on Inc.’s 2026 Regionals: Southeast list.

The company’s growth strategy involved a billing approach that differs from common industry practices. Most autism therapy providers bill in-network, accepting an insurer’s negotiated rates for access to its members. ABA Centers frequently remained out-of-network with several commercial plans, resulting in higher reimbursement per session. Founder Christopher Barnett explained in 2023 that these higher rates supported higher wages, smaller caseloads, and expansion into underserved markets.

“We’re solving a pain point for payers,” Barnett said in 2023. “They’re federally and sometimes state-mandated to provide network providers, but there aren’t enough to meet demand.” He said over 20% of clients obtained care through single-case agreements, allowing in-network benefits with non-network providers.

Why the Industry Avoids the Strategy

Intentional out-of-network billing is rare in autism therapy. Some payer executives view out-of-network billing as unsustainable and exploitative. Out-of-network claims account for a low share of spending. State autism coverage mandates and years of clinic growth drove most billing to in-network.

Industry cost pressures have increased. Other segments of behavioral health that previously relied on out-of-network billing, such as luxury addiction treatment, experienced declines after payers reduced out-of-network rates in the mid-2010s. In autism-related transactions, continued use of out-of-network billing has been described by some as a deterrent during due diligence.

Two Payers Allege Fraud

ABA Centers sued payers before they sued it. On December 31, 2024, it sued Point32Health, the parent of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care and Tufts Health Plan, in Massachusetts Superior Court for $80 million, alleging that the insurer has placed thousands of claims in “pend status” since December 2023, thereby stopping payment for over a year. The suit accused Point32Health of operating a “ghost network” too thin to serve patients, forcing families out of the network and then penalizing them.

In fall 2025, Point32Health counterclaimed for over $19 million, alleging that ABA Centers engaged in systematic fraud.

The filing makes unusual claims. Point32Health alleges ABA Centers billed therapy rates for sensory-friendly movie screenings and a trampoline-park event—totaling over $137,000 for sessions in which it claims “no therapy was provided.” It also accuses the company of manufacturing network scarcity by having new BCBAs drop their credentials and by coaching staff to make scripted calls showing no in-network providers were available.

Other counts target clinical practices. The counterclaim alleges ABA Centers gave families payment plans as low as $1 a month, waived cost-sharing, but told the insurer the amounts were collected—potentially a kickback under state law. It claims an internal system sorted patients by payer type, with lower-paying children at risk of discharge. The company allegedly billed $1.9 million for one patient under a premium code requiring a physician and clinical setting, which the filing says were lacking.

ABA Centers has not publicly addressed the specific allegations or conceded wrongdoing. In the cited correspondence, the company admitted it billed the premium code incorrectly once but disputed repayment.

The Publix Case

A second payer is making similar claims in Florida. In August 2025, ABA Centers of Florida sued Publix Super Markets in state court for unpaid out-of-network ABA claims for 10 children of Publix employees, care that it says Publix authorized even after ceasing payment in October 2024. Publix countersued in federal court, alleging fraud and invoking RICO.

After a judge dismissed its first complaint as a “shotgun pleading,” Publix filed a 221-page amended complaint in September 2025, alleging roughly $15 million in fraudulent billing. The grocer says it paid ABA Centers at least $5.8 million over two years before detecting the pattern, and that the company’s billing made it appear that patients had met their deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums when, in fact, their cost-sharing had been waived. Publix did not respond to a request for comment when the suits were filed.

AT A GLANCE

SOURCES & REFERENCES