74% of New York's Medicaid ABA Providers Said They Would Leave if the Second Cut Landed. It Landed April 1.

On February 10, 2026, the New York State Association for Behavior Analysis delivered testimony to the Joint Legislative Budget Hearing on Health. It contained a number the Legislature cannot say it did not have:

"According to a joint survey that NYSABA conducted with the Council of Autism Services Providers (CASP), 74% of providers have indicated that they will leave the Medicaid program if New York implements the second cut. We urge you to reject it."

The Legislature did not reject it. The second cut took effect April 1, 2026.

The structure of the cut

Per the testimony, the ABA Medicaid benefit was scheduled to be reduced by 25 percent, implemented in two stages:

• October 1, 2025 — first 12.5 percent reduction
• April 1, 2026 — second 12.5 percent reduction

NYSABA notes this survived "the Legislature's strong pushback" against a $16.7 million cut the Governor had proposed the prior year. The compromise was not no cut. It was the same cut, staged.

The association also reported that after the first tranche alone, it was "aware … of some Medicaid providers who had to suspend services altogether," and that those who stayed were "bracing themselves for April 1, 2026."

What a survey number is and is not

Worth stating plainly, because the figure will be quoted loosely: 74 percent is what providers told their own trade associations they would do under a hypothetical, in a survey conducted by parties campaigning against the cut. It is not a measured exit rate, and stated intent in advocacy surveys reliably overstates action — leaving a payer panel is easier to say than to do when it is most of your revenue.

What makes it worth reading anyway is that it is on the legislative record, dated, before the decision. It is the counterfactual New York accepted.

The Governor's answer: Centers of Excellence

The same testimony flags a second proposal — a "Centers of Excellence" designation for providers — and NYSABA's position on it is notably cooler than its position on the cut. It urges the Legislature "to proceed with caution."

The caution is warranted and the reason is structural. A designation tier introduced alongside a 25 percent across-the-board reduction does not distribute new money; it sorts a smaller pool. Providers who clear the bar get a differential funded by providers who do not. In a market where three-quarters of participants say the base rate is already below viability, a quality tier can function as a managed exit rather than an investment in quality.

The pattern worth tracking

Three states are now building tiers at once, from different directions. Massachusetts has made accreditation by a nationally recognized body a condition of payment. Florida's task force is drafting quality metrics and enrollment standards. New York is proposing designated Centers of Excellence on top of a completed cut.

None of them has published what earns the top tier, and the sequencing is the thing to watch. Massachusetts set a standard first. New York is proposing the tier while the rate falls. Those produce very different markets, and only one of them is about quality.