One of the most hotly debated measures during Oklahoma’s 2008 legislative session was Senate Bill 1537 (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 approximately 6,000 Oklahoma children. 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.

But there is a potential downside to health-care mandates: 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. 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 “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.

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

A tax-credit scholarship program would focus attention on the issue of early diagnosis and treatment.

A scholarship program provides needed flexibility for parents to seek and craft the best treatment solution for their child.

And 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.

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, visit Choice Remarks at okschoolchoice. blogspot.com.