Autism is a developmental disability that can cause significant social, communication, and behavioral challenges. Individuals with autism may communicate, interact, behave, and learn in ways that are different from others. The learning, thinking, and problem-solving abilities of individuals with autism can range from gifted to severely challenged. Some individuals with autism need extensive help in their daily lives, while others need less. CDC estimates that about 1 in 68 children have been identified as having autism. Diagnosing autism involves developmental screening and a comprehensive diagnostic evaluation. According to information on CDC’s website, developmental screening consists of a short test to tell if a child is learning basic skills when expected based on the child’s age, or if the child might have delays. During developmental screening, a doctor might ask the parent some questions or talk and play with the child to observe whether the child plays, learns, speaks, acts, and moves as expected. A delay in any of these areas could be a sign of a problem. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that all children be screened for developmental delays and disabilities during regular well-child doctor visits and specifically for autism at 18 and 24 months. If a doctor identifies any signs of a problem, a comprehensive diagnostic evaluation, which provides a thorough review that may include looking at the child’s behavior and development, should be performed and parents interviewed. In many cases, the doctor may refer the child and family to a specialist, such as a developmental pediatrician or child psychologist, for further assessment and diagnosis. There are a variety of interventions that are used to treat young children with autism who may face significant social, communication, and behavioral challenges. Typical therapies include physical and occupational therapy, speech and language therapy, and behavioral therapies. For example, occupational therapy can teach a child skills, such as dressing and relating to people in school and social situations, to help the child live as independently as possible. Speech and language therapy can help improve a child’s communication skills, such as verbal skills or gestures. There are many types of behavioral therapies used to treat children diagnosed with autism. For example, applied behavior analysis (ABA) is a commonly used framework to provide intervention services to children with autism. It uses behavior modification principles, such as positive reinforcement, to increase or decrease targeted behaviors. Other interventions can be incorporated into a treatment plan for a child with autism, such as parent-implemented interventions— structured parent training programs through which parents learn intervention practices that they can implement with their child at home and in the community. Children with disabilities—including children with autism—can receive intervention services through IDEA, which is overseen at the federal level by Education. Part B of IDEA requires states to make a free appropriate public education available to eligible children with disabilities as a condition of grant eligibility. In general, under Part B, Education provides formula grants to states to fund a portion of the excess costs incurred by school districts to provide special education and related services— referred to in this report as “special education services”—to students with disabilities ages 3 through 21, including those with autism, who meet certain eligibility criteria. Part B of IDEA requires that the special education services that each individual student needs in order to receive a free appropriate public education be included in the student’s individualized education program (IEP). Each student’s IEP must include, among other information, the child’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, measurable annual goals, and the special education and related services to be provided to enable the child to advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals and to be involved and make progress in the general education curriculum. The IEP is developed by a team of the child’s teachers, parents, a school district representative, other related services personnel, and whenever appropriate, the child. DOD is also required to provide special education services to eligible children who are served by its schools, although the department does not receive funding from Education. Through Part C of IDEA, Education provides formula grants to states to fund a portion of the costs of providing early intervention services to infants and toddlers through age 2 with developmental delays or who have been diagnosed with a physical or mental condition with a high probability of resulting in developmental delays. Under Part C, children are required to have an individualized family service plan (IFSP), which contains information about the services necessary to facilitate a child’s development and enhance the family’s capacity to facilitate the child’s development. Through the IFSP process, family members and service providers are intended to work as a team to plan, implement, and evaluate services tailored to the family’s unique resources, priorities, and concerns related to enhancing the development of the child as identified through the assessment of the family. Again, although DOD does not receive funding from Education, DOD is responsible for providing early intervention services to infants and toddlers through age 2 who are eligible to enroll in a DOD school. Some children with disabilities—including children with autism—can receive intervention services through federal health insurance programs such as Medicaid, a joint federal-state program overseen by CMS that finances the delivery of health care services for a diverse low-income and medically needy population. Although federal law sets minimum requirements for eligibility and coverage, states are accorded significant flexibility to design and implement their Medicaid programs, resulting in over 50 state programs that vary, for example, in how health care is financed and delivered. Children whose household incomes are above the threshold for Medicaid eligibility may have health care services financed through their state’s CHIP. CHIP is also a joint federal-state program overseen by CMS that states administer under broad federal requirements; and like Medicaid, the programs vary in eligibility and services covered. States can use Medicaid or CHIP to cover services such as physical and occupational therapy, and speech and language therapy, which may also be eligible IDEA early intervention and special education services. DOD offers health care services for active duty and retired uniformed servicemembers and their families, as well as National Guard and Reserve members and their families through TRICARE. Under TRICARE, beneficiaries may obtain care from military treatment facilities or through its purchased care system of civilian providers. The TRICARE program offers beneficiaries a managed care option, a preferred provider organization option, and a fee-for-service option—as well as other options available to specific eligibility groups. For example, children of active duty servicemembers may also qualify for the Extended Care Health Option, which is a supplementary program that offers additional coverage to beneficiaries with special needs. Among other requirements, beneficiaries must have a qualifying medical condition, which includes autism, to register in the Extended Care Health Option. In recent years, DOD has had a series of demonstrations to increase the provision of ABA to servicemembers’ family members who are diagnosed with autism. In March 2008, DOD began the Enhanced Access to Autism Services Demonstration to increase access to ABA for family members of active duty servicemembers by allowing ABA services to be provided by behavior technicians. In August 2012, DOD expanded ABA coverage to non-active duty family members through the TRICARE basic program. In July 2013, DOD began the ABA Pilot to provide supplemental ABA services to non-activity duty family members who seek additional services. The Autism CARES Act reauthorized the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC), which is a federal advisory committee that was initially established under the Children’s Health Act of 2000. The act directs the IACC to monitor autism research—and to the extent practicable, services and support activities—across all relevant federal departments and agencies, including coordination of federal autism activities. The Autism CARES Act also requires the IACC to develop and annually update a strategic plan for autism research, as well as for services and support activities, to the extent practicable, and make recommendations to ensure that federal autism activities are not unnecessarily duplicative. Further, it requires the IACC to meet at least twice annually. As of February 2016, the IACC consisted of 16 federal members and 15 nonfederal members, which included representatives from advocacy groups, university professors, individuals with autism, and parents of children with autism. In our November 2013 report, we found that the IACC’s and federal agencies’ efforts to coordinate and monitor federal autism activities were limited and that the IACC’s data on autism research was outdated. We made recommendations to address these findings. The limited coordination was particularly concerning given that we also found that 84 percent of the autism research projects funded by federal agencies from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 had the potential to be duplicative, because the projects were categorized to the same research objectives in the IACC strategic plan. The research objectives were broad enough to fund research that may not be duplicative, and agencies funding research in the same areas can be appropriate and advantageous—especially with a research topic as complex and heterogenetic as autism. Further, funding similar research on the same topic is sometimes appropriate for purposes of replicating or corroborating results. However, agencies funding research in the same area can also lead to unnecessary duplication and wasting of scarce federal resources, if funding decisions are not effectively coordinated. We concluded that the limited coordination and monitoring of federal agencies’ autism research could lead to numerous projects being funded to address a few specific areas within the realm of autism research—some of the projects having the potential to be unnecessarily duplicative—while other areas may be left unexplored. Consistent with our November 2013 recommendations, the Autism CARES Act directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to designate an existing official within HHS to oversee—in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and Education—national autism research, services, and support activities. This official is required to implement autism activities, taking into account the strategic plan developed by the IACC, and ensure that federal autism activities are not unnecessarily duplicative. Agencies specifically solicited research on early autism identification and interventions, and funded research in this area as a result of these solicitations. Other mechanisms agencies used to encourage early identification and interventions included funding for access to care and services, training, information resources, and awareness campaigns. Lastly, two HHS agencies have programs that serve young children and include developmental screenings for enrollees. Through FOAs, four agencies—DOD, Education, NIH, and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), another HHS agency— solicited research proposals on early screening, diagnosis, and interventions for young children with autism from fiscal years 2012 through 2015. DOD had 3 FOAs, Education had 4, HRSA had 8, and NIH had 10 FOAs soliciting research in these areas during this time period. As a result of these specific solicitations, these agencies funded research projects totaling approximately $109 million during this time period. DOD, Education, NIH, and the Administration for Community Living (ACL), an agency within HHS, funded an additional $286 million on research related to early screening, diagnosis, and interventions for autism, though not through FOAs that specifically solicited this type of research from fiscal years 2012 through 2015. For example, Education funded autism research through FOAs that solicited projects on early intervention and early learning in special education in general, as well as through FOAs that solicited research on commercially viable education technology products. NIH also funded intramural research related to autism identification and interventions. See table 1 for the amounts that agencies awarded through FOAs that specifically solicited research on autism early identification and interventions from fiscal years 2012 through 2015, as well as research funded through other solicitations. In addition to soliciting individual research projects, agencies provide funding for centers and networks to conduct research on a variety of autism-related topics, including early identification and interventions. NIH solicits applications for Autism Centers of Excellence to research autism diagnosis, treatment, and optimal means of service delivery, among other topics. For example, officials from one Autism Center of Excellence stated that they were developing eye tracking technology to screen children for autism early in life, as a lack of eye contact is one of the signs of autism. Additionally, CDC has provided supplemental funding to six Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network sites to monitor the prevalence of autism in 4-year-old children to better understand their characteristics to increase early identification. Agencies have established various mechanisms to encourage early screening, diagnosis, and interventions for young children with autism. These mechanisms include grants to improve access to care and services and increase provider training, as well as the development of information resources, and awareness campaigns. HRSA’s autism state implementation grant program provides funding to improve access to comprehensive, coordinated health care and related services for children and youth with autism and other developmental disabilities. Most recently, HRSA provided multi-year funding to nine states beginning in fiscal years 2013 and 2014. HRSA required its grantees that received funding in September 2013 or later to focus their efforts on promoting early identification, diagnosis, and entry into services based on lessons learned from early state program investments and expressed needs in the field. Officials from one of these states told us that they pursued the grant to connect the siloed infrastructure that exists within the state and identify children with autism at an earlier age than was occurring in the state. This grantee has conducted activities related to screening, assessment, and early intervention—including offering training to primary care providers, health department officials, interdisciplinary child development centers, and other professionals on developmental and autism screening and autism warning signs—and has plans for sustaining the activities beyond the 3-year grant. Federal agencies provide funding to train educators and practitioners. For example, in fiscal year 2013, HRSA’s two training programs—Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental and Other Related Disabilities, and Leadership Education in Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics—trained more than 18,000 professionals, including psychologists and pediatricians. These programs provide training on evidence-based services for children with autism and developmental disabilities, and on providing comprehensive diagnostic evaluations to confirm or rule out an autism diagnosis. HRSA also collaborated with CDC in developing Autism Case Training, which is available to the public on CDC’s website. Autism Case Training is designed to educate future health care providers on fundamental components of identifying, diagnosing, and managing autism. Education also funds grants for training scholars and professionals in special education, early intervention, and related services programs, which could include training specific to autism. Agencies have developed documents and websites to provide information and resources on interventions for young children with autism. For example, Education funded the National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorder to promote the use of evidence- based practices for children and youth with autism. The center identified 27 evidence-based interventions that were shown to be effective through scientific research for individuals with autism. These interventions are included on the center’s website, as well as instructions on implementing the interventions and an implementation checklist. ACL funded the organization Autism NOW, which maintains a website that provides information and links to resources, including for early detection, early intervention, and early education. DOD also developed a directory for military families to provide them with information on the educational services that are close to specific military installations in select states. HHS and some of its agencies, such as CDC and HRSA, maintain websites that provide resources for families and individuals with autism, including information on diagnosing autism and interventions. Also, another HHS agency, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) published a report in August 2014 on behavioral interventions for autism that focused on children from birth to age 12. According to AHRQ documentation, this report could be used to, among other things, provide clinicians who treat children with autism the evidence needed for different treatment strategies. Furthermore, ACL provides funding to the University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service, which was established in 1963 to help ensure that Americans with disabilities can be independent and productive. ACL’s funding supports, in part, the centers’ core functions, which include information dissemination, research, and training of students and fellows in multiple professional disciplines, as well as community training to professionals working in multiple disciplines supporting individuals with disabilities. According to ACL officials, while autism is not a specific area of emphasis for the centers, a substantial number of their information dissemination, research, and training activities address autism. For example, according to ACL officials, one center disseminated autism guidelines to programs that serve young children in its state, while another center implemented a project to examine ways to reduce barriers to conduct screening for developmental disabilities, including autism, in underserved populations. Multiple federal agencies are involved in producing awareness campaigns related to the identification of developmental delays. In March 2014, a group of HHS agencies—the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), ACL, CDC, CMS, HRSA, NIH, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration—and Education launched the Birth to 5: Watch Me Thrive! initiative to encourage developmental and behavioral screening and support for children—including those with autism—their families, and the providers who care for them. The initiative seeks to celebrate milestones, promote universal screening, identify possible delays and concerns early, and enhance developmental supports. In addition, CDC’s “Learn the Signs. Act Early.” initiative promotes awareness of healthy developmental milestones in early childhood, the importance of tracking each child’s development, and the importance of acting early if concerns are identified. The initiative works with state, territorial, and national partners to improve early childhood systems by enhancing collaborative efforts to improve screening and referral to early intervention services, to promote “Learn the Signs. Act Early.” messages and tools, and improve early identification efforts in their states and territories. ACF and HRSA have programs that include developmental screenings for enrollees. ACF’s Head Start and Early Head Start programs promote the school readiness of young children from low-income families from birth to age 5. Head Start and Early Head Start programs also support the mental, social, and emotional development of children. In addition to education services, programs provide children and their families with health, nutrition, social, and other services. All children in Head Start are required to receive developmental screening—including speech, hearing, and vision—within 45 days of the child’s entry into the program. Children who need further specialized assessment to determine whether they have a disability, such as autism, may be referred for an evaluation. HRSA has three programs that seek to reduce the age at which children are screened for developmental delays. Title V Block Grant: This program provides grants to all states to implement plans that address the health services needs within the state for the target population of mothers, infants, and children, including children with special health care needs. According to HRSA officials, as part of this program, 40 states have selected to address a new National Performance Measure looking at the percent of children ages 10 months to 71 months receiving a developmental screen using a parent-completed screening tool. The states’ intent in selecting this measure is to increase the proportion of children, including those with autism, who are screened at a younger age and who receive treatment. Early Childhood Comprehensive Systems Program: This program awards grants to states and organizations with the goal of ensuring that all children birth to age 3 are receiving the appropriate services at the appropriate time. The program brings together primary care providers, teachers, families, and caregivers to develop seamless systems of care for children from birth to age 3 using one of three strategies. One of these strategies is increasing developmental screening of young children to identify and treat problems early, such as autism. In 2013—the most recent grant competition—15 states received grants to implement this strategy. Federal Home Visiting Program: HRSA, in partnership with ACF, provides funding to states for the Home Visiting Program, which supports pregnant women and families, and helps at-risk parents of children from birth to kindergarten access resources and develop skills to raise children who are physically, socially, and emotionally healthy and ready to learn. According to HRSA officials, children enrolled in the Home Visiting Program receive an initial baseline developmental screening and may receive additional screening depending on how the program is administered in the state. In 2014, HRSA revised this program to support the goal of reducing the age of diagnosis of developmental disabilities, including autism, by bringing together a select group of grantees to, among other things, identify methods to increase the percentage of children who receive a developmental screening. Individualized intervention services are provided to young children with autism through IDEA early intervention and special education programs; additionally, the five states we examined and DOD have taken specific actions to help respond to the needs of children with autism that they serve. Data on children with autism served through IDEA special education programs is likely underreported as some of these children may be counted in other disability categories, such as the development delay category. Children enrolled in federal health care programs— Medicaid, CHIP, or TRICARE—received a variety of intervention services through these programs. Intervention services provided to young children with autism through IDEA early intervention and special education programs are individualized to the needs of each child; additionally, selected states and DOD have taken specific actions to help respond to the needs of children with autism that they serve. According to IDEA regulations, the services a child with autism receives are determined by the team that develops the child’s IFSP (for children in early intervention programs) and IEP (for children in special education programs), which includes the child’s parent, and must be individualized to the child. Officials from some of the five states we spoke with—California, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas—and DOD made comments regarding the need for individualized services regardless of a child’s diagnosis. For example, some state officials commented that specific methodologies or services—such as ABA—could be provided to a child within the context of IDEA-required services if these services are identified as a need for that child, regardless of whether the child has autism or another type of developmental disability. Further, children with autism have needs that can vary considerably and therefore the services provided to these children would vary. DOD officials stated that children with autism who are eligible for special education services—like children with other disabilities—can be provided specialized instruction, intervention strategies, modifications of the general education curriculum, and other related services, such as occupational therapy, physical therapy, and speech and language services, depending on the individual needs of the child. The five states we examined and DOD reported taking specific actions to help respond to the needs of young children with autism that they serve. Some of these actions are provided to children as part of IDEA early intervention or special education programs, while others are provided in addition to these programs. The following are examples of actions taken. California has 21 regional centers in the state that administer California’s early intervention program. According to California officials, funding is made available to each center in order to have an autism specialist on staff that coordinates and directs the diagnostic and treatment practices for the families that they serve. In 1998, Massachusetts began the autism specialty services program to supplement its early intervention program. If a child has an autism diagnosis and is enrolled in Massachusetts’ early intervention program, the child can also enroll in the autism specialty services program and receive autism-specific early intervention services, in addition to general early intervention services. According to Massachusetts officials, the state began the autism specialty services program because many general early intervention providers did not have the appropriate skill set to work with children with autism. Massachusetts has approved 17 providers for autism specialty services across geographic areas. The families choose providers, who are generally in their area, and the providers conduct intake assessments. According to state officials, under the autism specialty services program, children usually receive 10 to 30 hours a week of intensive behavioral intervention in their homes or care centers, in addition to general early intervention services. The autism specialty services program uses interventions for autism including the Early Start Denver Model, Floortime, and ABA. According to Massachusetts officials, 1,842 children up to age 3 received autism specialty services in the state’s fiscal year 2015. At the time of our review, Massachusetts did not have waiting lists for the autism specialty services program. Massachusetts officials stated that there are waiting lists to get an autism diagnosis—a requirement to receive the specialty services—especially in the western part of Massachusetts. Massachusetts uses a combination of state funding, Medicaid, and private insurance to pay for the program. In 2010, North Carolina partnered with the Carolina Institute for Developmental Disabilities at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to develop clinical guidelines for early intervention services for children with autism. This effort was partially funded by ACL and HRSA grants. The guidelines outline how to integrate information on autism into the state’s early intervention program and contain information on screening for autism, primary models of interventions for autism, and working with parents to implement interventions. Additionally, in 2014, North Carolina worked with professionals at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s TEACCH Autism Program to organize and conduct training for clinicians in 11 of the state’s 16 Children’s Developmental Services Agencies—the agencies that administer the state’s early intervention program. The training, funded by a HRSA grant, featured the use of the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, Second Edition—a semi-structured assessment of communication, social interaction, play, and restricted and repetitive behaviors for individuals suspected of having autism. North Carolina’s special education program has developed an autism plan that outlines goals related to building capacity within the school districts to strengthen the provision of autism interventions. For example, this plan includes goals for providing training to teachers related to serving children with autism. North Carolina’s special education program also holds an annual conference that gathers together education professionals and parents of children with disabilities and includes sessions on serving children with autism. According to North Carolina officials, the state also provides funding to autism teams in local school districts that submit a plan on how they will strengthen the instructional practices and services for children with autism in their district, including the use of best practices. Beginning in 2008, Ohio funded the Autism Diagnosis Education Project, which facilitates partnerships between community-based primary care physicians and professionals providing early intervention services to increase access to local and timely standardized, comprehensive diagnostic evaluations for children suspected of having autism. In this program, once an early intervention team has a question about whether a child being served might have autism, the team works with a physician located near the child to make (or rule out) an autism diagnosis. Since its inception, the project has expanded to include 46 participating counties, 330 early intervention professionals, and 39 partner physicians, and the average age of diagnosis has decreased to 29 months. From January 1, 2013, through May 21, 2015, 301 children were assessed in the program and 52 percent were diagnosed with autism. This project is funded through state funds. In 2011, Ohio began to implement an early intervention program across the state, referred to as the Play & Language for Autistic Youngsters (PLAY) project. PLAY is a parent-implemented intervention. Specifically, the PLAY project trains early intervention specialists on certain principles, methods, and techniques that emphasize following the child’s lead as a means for improving social impairment, a core symptom of autism. These early intervention specialists teach parents how to implement and use the intervention in everyday interactions with their child—PLAY providers ask parents to implement PLAY 15 to 20 hours a week. The state has held four trainings since 2011 with about 150 participants. According to Ohio officials, of Ohio’s 88 counties, 45 have early intervention specialists who are either trained, or are in the process of being trained, in PLAY. An additional 17 counties have access to PLAY providers. For children enrolled in Ohio’s early intervention program, the PLAY curriculum may be indicated as an early intervention service need on a child’s IFSP if the IFSP team believes that the PLAY methods and strategies can better help address the family’s outcomes than more traditional service delivery methods, according to Ohio officials. The state, which funds the PLAY project trainings through its general revenue fund, has received positive feedback from the providers and families involved in the PLAY project. In 2007, Texas began requiring the team that develops an IEP to consider 11 strategies when forming IEPs for children diagnosed with autism enrolled in its special education program through what is known as the Autism Supplement. According to Texas officials, the Autism Supplement was designed so that the IEP team would look at the unique characteristics of children with autism. Because not all strategies may be suitable for use with every child, the team has the option to exclude any of the 11 strategies from the IEP, but must provide a written rationale for the exclusion. In 2008, Texas established the Autism Program, which provides ABA to children diagnosed with autism. According to Texas officials, the purpose of the program is to make ABA more accessible, particularly to children diagnosed with autism who are having difficulty in school. The Autism Program is not part of Texas’ special education program, but frequently serves children who are enrolled and receiving services through its special education program. According to Texas officials, the program works with the school districts to avoid duplication of services the districts provide and to make ABA services available after school. Board certified behavior analysts provide oversight and treatment plans; actual treatment services are largely provided by registered behavior technicians. According to Texas officials, about 295 children were served by the Autism Project in the state’s fiscal year 2014—84 of which were ages 3 through 5. According to these officials, the program is funded through Texas’ general revenue fund and a limited amount of private insurance reimbursement. At the time of our review, the program maintained a waiting list of about 1,150 children and had eight providers in six communities due to limited funding, so very few counties in Texas were covered. State officials noted that this number was likely to increase due to action taken during a previous state legislative session to increase funding. In April 2015, after learning about the PLAY project in Ohio, the Wright- Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio began a PLAY project pilot funded for one year by the Air Force Surgeon General. Two full time staff were hired and trained in PLAY. The pilot has provided PLAY training to 24 enrolled families as an intervention parents can implement with their children diagnosed with autism ages 18 months to 6 years to improve social interactions. PLAY is a transportable intervention parents can take with them when they move to a new duty station. In April 2016, Air Force officials told us that the pilot had been funded through fiscal year 2019. DOD officials told us that it supports continued Air Force funding to allow sufficient time to determine outcomes of the pilot. Additionally, according to DOD officials, autism specialists are available to all DOD schools needing assistance with the education of a child age 3 and older with autism. Data reported to Education from 49 states and the District of Columbia indicate that approximately 66,000 children ages 3 through 5 with autism received services in school year 2014-2015. However, this is likely an undercount of the children with autism receiving special education services, because children with autism may not be reported to Education under the autism disability category. For children enrolled in special education programs, states are required to report to Education the number of children receiving services by disability category, including autism. However, states may use a general disability category, “developmental delay,” when reporting, either because the child may not yet be diagnosed with autism, or the child may be diagnosed, but the parents prefer to use the general disability category for privacy purposes. Further, communication difficulties are a typical symptom of autism, and Education, DOD, and some state officials also told us that children with autism may be reported under the disability category “speech and language impairment.” Children who are placed in the “developmental delay” or “speech and language impairment” category would not appear in the autism category. Certain states’ use of disability categories may also influence the number of children with autism reported by the state. For example, California and Texas do not allow the use of the “developmental delay” category. Ohio pays its school districts based on the number of children served and their disability categories; school districts get more funding for students in the “autism” disability category than those in the “developmental disability” category. See appendix II for the number of children ages 3 through 5 in states’ special education autism category, by state, in school year 2014-2015. The actual number of children with autism receiving early intervention services is also unknown. States are required to report to Education the total number of children served under early intervention programs, but not by disability category. DOD also does not collect these data. DOD and Education officials both stated the specific disability designation of a child does not dictate the types of early intervention services that a child receives. Further, it is common for children under age 3 to not have a specific diagnosis. Children enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP from our five selected states— Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, and Minnesota—received a variety of intervention services during fiscal year 2013. Specifically, we identified 8,208 children ages 1 through 5 with autism in these states and almost all received intervention services. Children age 5 accounted for the largest age group of children that we identified with autism; however, a large proportion of children were ages 3 and 4. We also found that nearly 20 percent of children identified with autism were ages 1 or 2. See figure 1 for the distribution of children enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP from these five states and identified with autism by age. Over half of the services young children identified with autism received were within the speech, language, and audiology category and the physical and occupational therapy category—with the former category making up about one-third of the total intervention services received by these children in fiscal year 2013. See figure 2 for the percentage of intervention services received by service category. When services received are examined by age group, speech, language, and audiology services remain the most commonly received services; however, there is variation in the other categories of services received. Among children ages 1 and 2, physical and occupational therapy were nearly as common as speech, language, and audiology services, and behavioral services and home care and skills training were less common. Beginning at age 3, behavioral services and home care and skills training became more frequently received. Figure 3 shows the category of services received by young children identified with autism by age group. While autism services are not a specified Medicaid benefit, CMS issued an informational bulletin in July 2014 that may result in more children receiving these services under Medicaid. Specifically, the informational bulletin clarified states’ options for providing autism-related services to children under various Medicaid authorities. It also discussed requirements related to services for children under the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit. Some states have been using other Medicaid authorities, such as home and community-based services waivers, to provide behavioral therapy services, such as ABA. Because waivers cover a limited number of beneficiaries, states’ Medicaid programs may not have been able to fulfill the need for services of children with autism through a waiver. CMS officials told us that the clarifying bulletin would likely result in an increase in the number of children receiving such services, as states may have to transition these individuals to the EPSDT benefit under their state plans, which must be furnished to beneficiaries statewide. For at least one state, this may already be the case. Utah Department of Health officials told us that they transitioned to provide ABA services under their state plan in July 2015 as a result of this guidance. While about 380 children received services under Utah’s autism waiver in the state’s fiscal year 2015, that number increased to about 455 in the first 5 months following the transition, and officials estimate that approximately 4,000 children may now be able to receive autism services through their state plan. CMS officials stated that states may choose to amend their state plan to include autism treatment services in an effort to be more transparent about the services available to children diagnosed with autism. At the time of our review, CMS officials indicated that 7 states had recently approved Medicaid state plans to include autism treatment services, and an additional 18 states have either submitted draft changes to their Medicaid state plan—known as amendments—to cover such services or are in discussions with CMS officials about the autism treatment services they propose to cover in the state plan. Children enrolled in DOD’s TRICARE that were identified with autism received a variety of intervention services in fiscal year 2014. Specifically, 8,103 children ages 1 through 5 identified with autism were eligible to receive services through TRICARE and almost all received services. About half of the children identified with autism were ages 3 and 4, and about 30 percent of children identified with autism were ages 1 or 2. See figure 4 for the distribution of children identified with autism by age. Unlike Medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries, we found that young children enrolled in TRICARE and identified with autism most commonly received behavioral services, which comprised about one-third of intervention services received by these children. However, speech, language, and audiology services, and physical and occupational therapy services still made up a large portion of the intervention services received by these children. See figure 5 for the percentage of intervention services received by service category. When services received are examined by age group, behavioral services remain the most commonly received services by children in most age groups; however, there is variation in the other categories of services received. At age 1, children most commonly received speech, language, and audiology services; physical and occupational therapy were also commonly received. Among children age 2, behavioral services were about as common as physical and occupational therapy, and speech, language, and audiology services. Behavioral services were notably more common than other services among children ages 3 through 5. (See fig. 6.) In 2014, DOD offered ABA to children—who were TRICARE beneficiaries and had an autism diagnosis—through autism demonstrations. Of the approximately 8,103 children enrolled in TRICARE that we identified with autism, 3,788 (47 percent) were enrolled in the demonstrations. Most of the behavioral services received by children through TRICARE went to those who participated in the demonstration—an expected finding given that the demonstration focused on providing ABA and related behavioral services that may not have been as readily accessible by non- participants. Overall, children enrolled in the demonstrations received nearly three times as many intervention services as children who were not enrolled in the demonstrations. See figure 7 for the percentage of total intervention services received by children who were enrolled in the demonstrations compared to those who were not enrolled in the demonstrations. Information on the expenditures related to providing intervention services to young children identified with autism enrolled in Medicaid, CHIP, and TRICARE is available in appendix III. HHS has recently taken steps that could help address recommendations we made in November 2013. Specifically, to promote better federal coordination and avoid the potential for unnecessary duplication, we recommended that (1) the IACC and NIH identify projects through the department’s monitoring of federal autism activities that may be unnecessarily duplicative and thus candidates for consolidation or elimination, and (2) DOD, Education, HHS, and NSF determine methods for identifying and monitoring the autism research conducted by other agencies. To develop these recommendations, we applied criteria from federal internal control standards and best practices for collaboration from our prior work, which state that tracking and monitoring are key activities that can benefit interagency collaborative mechanisms. Since our 2013 report was issued, HHS has continued to disagree that our recommendations were warranted. HHS has recently taken actions required by the Autism CARES Act that could help coordinate federal autism research and implement our recommendations. First, as directed by the act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services designated an official to serve as the Autism Coordinator to oversee national autism research, services, and support activities and ensure that autism activities funded by HHS and other federal agencies are not unnecessarily duplicative. HHS announced this designation in April 2016, while a draft of this report was at the department for comment. Second, the Autism Cares Act requires that the IACC’s strategic plan include recommendations to ensure that autism research funded by HHS and other federal agencies is not unnecessarily duplicative. While the 2013 strategic plan—released in April 2014—is the most recent plan, an update to the plan has been under discussion since late 2015. Specifically, the IACC met for the first time as a full committee in November 2015—16 months after its last full committee meeting. During this meeting, as well as subsequent meetings in January and April 2016, NIH staff and IACC members discussed updating the strategic plan. The requirement to include the aforementioned recommendations was discussed; however, no specific details for how this will be accomplished were identified. In addition to recent steps taken by HHS in response to Autism CARES Act requirements, NIH also released fiscal year 2011 and 2012 data on federal autism research, which the agency collects on behalf of the IACC. These data were made available in April 2016, while a draft of this report was at the department for comment. Specifically, these data were released into the Autism Spectrum Disorder Research Portfolio Analysis Web Tool (Web Tool), the IACC’s online database on autism research. Prior to this new release, the Web Tool contained fiscal year 2008 through 2010 data. NIH, on behalf of the IACC, also released the 2011- 2012 IACC Portfolio Analysis Report, which provides an analysis of autism research funding in 2011 and 2012, as well as a five-year overview of autism research funding by the U.S. government and private sector and five-year trends (2008 through 2012) by each of the seven research areas in the IACC’s strategic plan. NIH officials told us that they have also collected data on autism research that was federally funded in fiscal year 2013 and plan to release that data in the second half of calendar year 2016. Although HHS continues to disagree that our recommendation to develop methods for improved cross-agency coordination was warranted, HRSA took a positive step in April 2014 by contacting DOD to determine whether any potential overlap existed between the agencies’ programs. HRSA officials told us that they reviewed abstracts of all currently funded DOD research projects and found no scientific overlap. HRSA officials also used information from DOD, HHS agency websites, and NIH’s online database when developing new FOAs. For example, in two FOAs HRSA chose to focus exclusively on populations served by HRSA’s Maternal and Child Health Bureau in order to help avoid potential duplication with other federal agencies. During our review, NIH officials reiterated their position that they believe their processes are adequate to avoid unnecessary duplication and provided us with the 2012 program officer handbook, which outlines the responsibilities of NIH program officers—some of which will help avoid potential unnecessary duplication and were included in our November 2013 report. According to NIH officials, a fundamental part of an NIH program officer’s responsibility is to assure that federal taxpayer funds are expended on research projects that will produce the most effective, efficient, and productive results. The program officer handbook outlines project officers’ responsibility to stay abreast of the scientific literature and attend professional and scientific meetings, which we reported in November 2013. It also discusses the officers’ role in reviewing the “other support” section of research applications. This section details the other active and pending funding available in direct support of an individual’s research endeavors and is provided by the applicant for all individuals designated in a research application as a principal investigator. Program officers must review this section for scientific overlap, among other information. While this type of review is important, as we described in our November 2013 report, it only helps to ensure that an applicant, and the applicant’s principal investigator, is not submitting essentially the same research application to multiple funding sources. This review would not uncover research from different applicants with different principal investigators, which have already been funded, and that may be unnecessarily duplicative of the applicant’s research; in other words, a project with the same purpose, strategies, and target population that is not necessary to corroborate or replicate prior research results. The program officer handbook also includes a description of several databases and web-based tools that are available for the program officers’ use in fulfilling their responsibilities. However, although this information is provided to program officers, NIH officials told us that the agency does not dictate which specific tools or databases program officers should use to identify similar grants by a different principal investigator for each grant funding decision. NIH continues to have limited procedures in place to help ensure that program officers identify potentially unnecessarily duplicative research by different principal investigators when making funding decisions. Officials from the other agencies that were included in our recommendation—DOD, Education, and NSF—told us that they have taken initial steps to monitor other federal agencies’ research. DOD officials told us that the department has finalized an interagency agreement with NIH to complete a pilot study aimed at developing requirements and testing the feasibility of transferring DOD medical research application data to a NIH data system. According to DOD officials, this transfer of data would allow multiple agencies and the public to view research application data to assist in the identification of potential duplication and facilitate funding decisions. DOD officials anticipate that the feasibility studies will conclude by June 2016. Additionally, Education officials told us that they have reached out to HHS and are awaiting guidance on coordination from HHS and in the interim will continue to participate in IACC meetings. Education officials also stated that the department anticipates funding, pending congressional appropriations, model demonstrations projects focused on autism. These projects will build on existing research on promising evidence-based practices for autism by identifying challenges associated with their implementation. According to Education officials, the department will coordinate with the IACC and review relevant research prior to soliciting applications related to these research projects. Also, even though the agency is not a member of the IACC, NSF officials told us that they observe IACC meetings when convened and check the IACC’s Web Tool to monitor autism research funded by other federal agencies and to help avoid unnecessarily duplicative research. We acknowledge the steps taken by the agencies to respond to our November 2013 recommendation, as well as in response to the Autism CARES Act; however, continued action is needed to develop these initial steps into methods for identifying and monitoring federal autism research that are consistently applied. This is especially important given that, as we previously reported in November 2013, agencies are funding research in the same areas, which creates the potential for unnecessary duplication. While we are not making additional recommendations, we believe that our 2013 recommendations remain valid, and that HHS’s continued fulfillment of the provisions in the Autism CARES Act could help the department implement our recommendations. We provided a draft of this report to DOD, Education, HHS, and NSF for review and comment. Education and HHS provided written comments, which are reprinted in appendixes IV and V. These departments, along with DOD, also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. NSF did not provide any comments. Education and HHS directed many of their comments to our third finding, which updated the status of agency actions to implement recommendations contained in our November 2013 report. In that report, we found that many autism research projects funded by federal agencies had the potential to be duplicative, because the projects were categorized to the same research objectives in the IACC strategic plan. In their comments on this report, Education and HHS disagreed that there was potential for duplication and questioned the basis of our analysis. The departments stated that the 78 research objectives—which our analysis was based on—are broad, and therefore, may require attention from researchers of different disciplines in order to address the complexity and heterogeneity of autism. This may necessarily involve funding of multiple projects from more than one federal agency. Education stated that a careful review of the projects themselves is needed to determine actual duplication. As we noted in our 2013 report, we agree that it may be appropriate and advantageous to have multiple projects and agencies address the same research objective. We also agree that the specific projects identified as potentially duplicative would need to be reviewed further to identify actual duplication and believe such a review of these data is important to ensure federal funds are used efficiently and effectively so that informed decisions can be made. Our finding that agencies are funding research in the same research areas highlights how imperative it is that agencies effectively coordinate and monitor each other’s autism research. It was the limited coordination and monitoring that we identified in our prior work that was the basis for our prior recommendations. Based on the comments received, we revised the report to acknowledge the breadth of the research objectives and to emphasis our prior findings as they relate to the need for improved coordination and monitoring. HHS also commented that staff in its agencies, including NIH, avoid clear and obvious overlap or unnecessary duplication. HHS stated that they do this by utilizing the research project information in their internal database, Information for Management, Planning, Analysis, and Coordination (IMPAC II), which contains detailed pre-award and award data for four HHS agencies— AHRQ, CDC, the Food and Drug Administration, and HRSA—and some research applications and grants of the Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as participating in the IACC. Further, HHS stated that NIH’s internal autism coordinating committee coordinates research internally within NIH. The use of databases and participation in the IACC as a means to coordinate and monitor across agencies is information that we have reported on in this report and our November 2013 report. We continue to believe that these methods are limited. Further, while we appreciate HHS’s comment that it is taking steps to avoid clear and obvious unnecessary duplication, this is not sufficient given the substantial federal investment in this area. From fiscal years 2008 through 2012, agencies awarded funds of about $1.2 billion for autism research, and many funded research in the same areas. Autism is an important and complex public health concern affecting a large number of individuals, which makes it all the more important that scarce federal resources be used efficiently and strategically. Prudent stewardship requires a careful assessment and coordinated effort to look for unnecessary duplication that may be less than obvious. Lastly, HHS stated that our draft report was incorrect in stating that the Web Tool was the primary tool by which potentially duplicative autism research is to be identified. The department stated that IMPAC II database is used by NIH program officers when evaluating research grant applications. Our draft report did not state that the Web Tool was the primary tool used to identify potentially duplicative autism research; however, we revised the report to clarify information presented on the Web Tool. In its comments, Education also stated that the draft report properly acknowledged the health care and educational programs that provide intervention services to young children with autism. Further, the department stated that it stands ready to work with HHS as HHS implements the Autism CARES Act and that a significant body of research is still needed to better understand and address the developmental academic needs of students with autism, especially given the great variations across the autism spectrum and the range of student learning needs. As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of the Department of Defense, the Secretary of the Department of Education, the Director of the National Science Foundation, and to other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7114 or crossem@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI. We examined the intervention services that are provided to children with autism through federal health care programs. More specifically, to do this we analyzed fiscal year 2013 fee-for-service claims and managed care encounter data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) Medicaid and Statistical Information System (MSIS) for five select states. We also analyzed fiscal year 2014 Department of Defense (DOD) TRICARE military treatment facility and purchased care claims data. At the time we began our review, these were the most recent fiscal years for which CMS’s and DOD’s data were available. Our analysis consisted of the following three steps: (1) state selection for CMS data, as well as assessing data reliability for both our selected states’ and DOD’s data; (2) identification of children with autism; and (3) identification of intervention services for children with autism. Lastly, we describe the limitations of our methods. We selected five states to include in our analysis of health care data— Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, and Minnesota. We chose these five states based on the availability and reliability of their reported Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) data in MSIS. Specifically, at the time we began our review, there were 35 states that had validated fiscal year 2013 MSIS data from which we could choose. To determine which of these 35 states to include in our review, we reviewed reports with information on states use of managed care organizations and the completeness and reliability of states’ managed care encounter data in MSIS. Similarly, we reviewed reports on states’ use of behavioral health organizations to provide certain services—since those organizations may be used to provide some of the intervention services included in our review—and the extent to which states’ data in MSIS on services provided by behavioral health organizations is reliable and complete. Lastly, we reviewed reports with information on the completeness and reliability of states’ CHIP data in MSIS. We discussed the reliability and usability of the five states’ data with knowledgeable officials from CMS, its contractor responsible for processing Medicaid and CHIP data reported from states (Mathematica Policy Research), and selected state officials. We discussed the reliability and usability of the TRICARE data with knowledgeable DOD officials. We performed data checks, such as examining the data for missing values and obvious errors, to test the internal consistency and reliability of the data. These data were found to be reliable for our purposes. Based on eligibility information in the MSIS eligibility file and the TRICARE beneficiary file, we restricted our study to children who were (1) age 1 through age 5 at the beginning of the fiscal year, and (2) enrolled in one of these programs for at least 10 months. We limited our review to only those children we identified with autism. For purposes of this report, we considered a child to have autism if the child had at least one claim with an autism diagnosis code at any point in the fiscal year. We focused our review on non-institutional services contained within the MSIS other services file and the TRICARE non-institutional file. There is no standard set or list of procedure codes that are used by providers to report the provision of intervention services to children with autism. Therefore, we developed a list of procedure codes that could closely reflect the provision of intervention services to young children with autism. To do this, we took the following four steps. 1. We reviewed documentation and interviewed federal agency officials, as well as officials from non-federal entities, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, to gather general information on typical interventions for young children with autism. 2. We identified the procedure codes found on claims with an autism diagnosis code in our dataset and examined the definitions of these codes. 3. We discussed procedure codes relevant to providing interventions to children with autism with representatives from the following seven professional associations: American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry; American Physical Therapy Association; American Occupational Therapy Association; American Psychiatric Association; American Psychological Association; American Speech, Hearing, and Language Association; and Association of Professional Behavioral Analysts. 4. In recognition of variations in the practice of medicine across geographic regions, we gathered information from all five selected states about their use of certain procedure codes to determine if the use of these codes typically reflected the delivery of an intervention service for autism in their respective states. Based on the information gathered, we identified a list of procedure codes that appeared to reflect common autism-related interventions. The intervention services in our review also include related diagnostic or evaluation services. When generating the list of procedure codes, it was not possible for us to parse out intervention services from assessment- type services because, in general, an assessment is needed in order to determine the best intervention approach and to adjust that approach over time. Further, we heard from the association officials we interviewed that providers are frequently assessing at the same time they are providing an intervention. For reporting purposes, we categorized the procedure codes we identified into five broad categories. 1. Behavioral, which includes psychiatry services, health and behavioral assessments and intervention services, and applied behavior analysis. 2. Evaluation and management, which includes central nervous system tests, office or other outpatient visits or consultations, and medical team conferences to diagnose and develop intervention strategies. 3. Home care and skills training, which includes teaching skills to the child and the child’s family to promote the child’s development and independent living. 4. Physical and occupational therapy, which includes the provision of therapies to, for example, teach a child how to develop movements involved with walking, eating, or communicating. 5. Speech, language, and audiology, which includes evaluation and treatment of speech, language, voice, communication, and auditory processing. To the extent possible, we based our categorization on the American Medical Association’s Current Procedural Terminology codebook, although our categories are broader than those found in this codebook. We asked experts from each of the seven professional associations to comment on our categorization. We received responses from five of the seven associations. Three of the five associations—American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, American Physical Therapy Association and Association of Professional Behavioral Analysts—agreed with our categorization. The other two—American Occupational Therapy Association, and American Speech-Hearing-Language Association—were concerned that putting a procedure code in the “behavioral” category, for example, might imply that the code cannot appropriately be used by professionals, such as speech and language pathologists or occupational therapists. This is not the intention of our categorization, nor should our categories be considered as billing advice to be associated with or used for billing purposes. In fact, we found that four of the seven associations stated that their professionals used codes that fall within our “behavioral” category, and five of the seven used codes that fall with our “evaluation and management” category, among others. See table 2 for the procedure codes included in our review and the categories of interventions they fall under for the purposes of our report. Because our Medicaid and CHIP data are from five states, the results of our analyses of these data are not generalizable across all states. The intervention services in our review only reflect services identified by the procedure codes included in our review, and as a result, the amount of services we report may be an undercount. Based on our methodology, we believe the list of procedure codes is appropriate and fairly represents interventions provided to children with autism. Because we included all claims of children identified with autism (with relevant procedure codes) due to the potential for inconsistency in the diagnosis codes included on a claim, some of the services in our review may not have been provided for, or relate to, the treatment of autism. In these cases, the amount of services we report may be over reported. The Department of Education requires states to report the number of children ages 3 through 5 enrolled in the states’ special education program by disability category—such as autism. The number of children reported in the autism category is likely less than the actual number of children with autism being served by states. Children with autism may be categorized under other categories including a general disability category, “developmental delay,” or the category, “speech and language impairment,” because communication difficulties are a typical symptom of autism. The data provided to Education indicate that approximately 66,000 children ages 3 through 5 under the autism category received services in school year 2014-2015, as shown in table 3. We examined certain expenditures for the provision of intervention services to children ages 1 through 5 identified with autism and enrolled in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Medicaid program, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the Department of Defense’s (DOD) TRICARE program. We examined fiscal year 2013 Medicaid and CHIP expenditure data in fee-for-service claims for five states: Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, and Minnesota. Fee-for-service claims were about 87 percent of the total intervention services provided to children identified with autism that we reviewed, with managed care encounters making up the remaining portion of services provided. See table 4 for the expenditures on intervention services provided to children identified with autism enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP, by service category. We examined fiscal year 2014 expenditures for TRICARE purchased care claims. Purchased care claims were about 96 percent of the total intervention services provided to children identified with autism that we reviewed, with military treatment facility claims comprising the remainder of services provided. We examined the expenditures for those young children who were enrolled in DOD’s autism demonstrations—which offered increased access to applied behavior analysis (ABA) to servicemembers’ family members diagnosed with autism—as well as those who were not enrolled in the demonstration. See table 5 for expenditures on intervention services provided to children identified with autism enrolled in the TRICARE autism demonstrations, and those who received such services but were not enrolled in the demonstration, by service category. In addition to the contact named above, Geri Redican-Bigott, Assistant Director; Deirdre Gleeson Brown; Jackie Hamilton; Giselle Hicks; Drew Long; Brandon Nakawaki; Vikki Porter; Sarah Resavy; and Eric Wedum made key contributions to this report. Federal Autism Research: Updated Information on Funding from Fiscal Years 2008 through 2012. GAO-15-583R. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2015. Federal Autism Activities: Funding and Coordination Efforts. GAO-14-613T. Washington, D.C.: May 20, 2014. Federal Autism Activities: Better Data and More Coordination Needed to Help Avoid the Potential for Unnecessary Duplication. GAO-14-16. Washington, D.C.: November 20, 2013. Combating Autism Act: HHS Agencies Responded with New and Continuing Activities, Including Oversight. GAO-13-232. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2013. Federal Autism Activities: Funding for Research Has Increased, but Agencies Need to Resolve Surveillance Challenges. GAO-06-700. Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2006. Special Education: Children with Autism. GAO-05-220. Washington, D.C.: January 14, 2005.

Summary: Research has shown that early intervention can greatly improve the development of a child with autism. Children with disabilities—including children with autism—can receive intervention services through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Low income children may also receive intervention services through Medicaid or CHIP, health care programs overseen at the federal level by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and administered by the states. Children of servicemembers may receive services through TRICARE, DOD's health care program. GAO was asked to review federal autism efforts. This report describes (1) how federal agencies encourage early autism identification and interventions, and (2) the intervention services provided by federal education and health care programs. It also (3) examines steps taken by HHS and federal agencies to improve research coordination. GAO collected information on education programs in five states that were selected for size, activities, and variation in geographic location. GAO analyzed health care program data: fiscal year 2014 TRICARE data and fiscal year 2013 Medicaid and CHIP data—the most recent data available at the time of the review—from another five states selected based on the availability of reliable data. GAO also monitored the implementation of its 2013 recommendations to improve autism research coordination. Education and HHS provided comments on a draft of this report and disagreed that there is potential for unnecessary duplication. GAO continues to believe improved coordination is needed. Federal agencies have taken various actions to encourage early autism identification and interventions, such as specifically soliciting research in these areas. From fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2015, the departments of Defense (DOD), Education, and Health and Human Services (HHS), awarded about $395 million for research on early identification and interventions for autism. Federal programs provide a variety of intervention services to young children with autism. When examining the education programs administered by five states and DOD, GAO found that specific actions were taken to help respond to the individual intervention needs of children with autism. Children enrolled in federal health care programs—Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or TRICARE—received a variety of interventions. For example, GAO identified about 8,200 young children with autism in five states enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP and found that speech, language, and audiology services were the most common overall; however, the types of services commonly received varied, depending on the age of the child. HHS has recently taken actions required by the Autism Collaboration, Accountability, Research, Education, and Support Act of 2014 (Autism CARES Act) that could help coordinate federal autism research and implement GAO's prior recommendations. For example, in April 2016, HHS designated an autism coordinator to oversee national autism research, services, and support activities. In 2013, GAO reported that there was limited coordination among agencies. This was especially concerning because GAO also found that 11 federal agencies funded autism research in the same areas—resulting in the potential for unnecessary duplication. At that time, GAO recommended that HHS improve the data it collects on autism research and that federal agencies develop methods to monitor and coordinate this research. GAO believes that HHS's continued fulfillment of certain provisions in the Autism CARES Act could help the department implement GAO's 2013 recommendations.