FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — ABA Centers of America, a high-growth, multi-state autism therapy firm that achieved rapid national prominence in under six years, has confirmed it is currently under federal investigation regarding its billing practices. The company, which has seen its financial fortunes rise sharply since its founding in 2020, stated that it is cooperating with investigators as they examine the firm’s operations.
The federal scrutiny, which began in early 2025, is being led by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in New Hampshire. A federal magistrate there has authorized investigators to gain access to the electronic communications of founder Christopher M. Barnett and several other high-ranking company officials. The investigation has drawn the attention of the fraud section of the U.S. Justice Department’s criminal division in Washington, which is working in coordination with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Concord, New Hampshire.
While the investigation remains ongoing, no criminal charges have been filed against the company or any individual to date.
Details of the Federal Affidavit
An 81-page federal affidavit, filed to secure access to the Microsoft accounts of various ABA executives, outlines the scope of the government’s inquiry. According to the document, investigators are looking into potential offenses including conspiracy to commit money laundering, healthcare fraud, wire fraud, and the making of false statements related to health matters.
The affidavit alleges that ABA Centers of America engaged in fraudulent billing of healthcare benefit programs. Specifically, it claims the company submitted claims for medically unnecessary services rendered in the District of New Hampshire, the District of Massachusetts, and other locations. The documents suggest that the company misrepresented the location of services, the identity of the rendering provider, and the actual medical necessity of the treatments provided.
Investigators further allege that through an affiliated billing arm, the company sought reimbursement for activities that do not qualify as legitimate medical treatment, such as sessions where a client was found to be napping or watching television. The affidavit asserts that the company’s internal operations were driven by a rating system that categorized patients based on the potential profitability of their health insurance plans, rather than the specific medical needs of the children and teenagers they served.
Through interviews with former employees and patients, investigators have reportedly identified instances where services provided in Massachusetts were billed as if they had occurred in New Hampshire. The alleged motivation for this discrepancy was the higher reimbursement rates offered by New Hampshire insurance plans compared to those in Massachusetts.
The affidavit also paints a picture of personal financial gain. It claims that founder Christopher M. Barnett utilized proceeds from the allegedly fraudulent billing to fund a lavish lifestyle, including the purchase of luxury automobiles and a corporate jet, as well as the lease of a multi-million dollar waterfront residence in Fort Lauderdale.
Concurrent Civil Litigation
The federal inquiry is not the only legal challenge facing the company. ABA Centers of America is currently embroiled in significant civil litigation involving major insurers and employers. Most notably, the company is involved in a contentious legal battle with Publix Super Markets and its corporate health insurance plan.
The litigation began when ABA sued the supermarket chain in Florida state court, seeking payment for what it characterized as millions of dollars in unpaid claims. Publix responded with a robust counterclaim filed in federal court in the Middle District of Florida, accusing the therapy provider of running a scheme under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
Publix is seeking approximately $15 million in damages, alleging that ABA Centers presented itself as a high-quality provider while actually generating vast quantities of unjustified claims. In late 2025, the case was transferred to the Southern District of Florida in Fort Lauderdale and assigned to U.S. District Judge Raag Singhal.
In an order issued on August 28, Judge Singhal allowed six of the nine counts in the Publix lawsuit to proceed, ordering ABA’s legal team from Greenberg Traurig to respond by mid-October. Judge Singhal’s order provided a stark analysis of the allegations: “Plaintiffs — an employer and an insurance plan — allege that healthcare provider Defendants committed insurance fraud. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants submitted inflated bills to Plaintiffs and intended Plaintiffs to calculate the amount owed under the insurance plan based off the inflated amounts, even though Defendants never intended to collect significant portions of those totals from the employee Plan Members who received treatment.”
The judge illustrated this by noting that if a $1,000 bill were submitted for a 15-minute appointment, with the insurer paying 60% and the patient 40%, the provider would only collect the $600 from the insurer and a negligible amount from the patient. The total bill, the judge noted, was fundamentally misleading.
Similar civil litigation is active in Massachusetts, where Point32Health Services and its subsidiary, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, have filed an amended counterclaim against ABA and a related entity, Integrative Healthcare Services. These insurers are seeking more than $19 million in damages, alleging a “far-reaching scheme” to defraud their systems.
Philanthropic Fallout
The news of the federal investigation has had ripple effects beyond the corporate and legal spheres. In 2024, Christopher M. Barnett made headlines by pledging $55 million to his undergraduate alma mater, Temple University in Philadelphia. In response to what was touted as the largest gift in the university’s history, Temple renamed its College of Public Health to the Christopher M. Barnett College of Public Health.
However, as details of the federal scrutiny emerged, the university moved to distance itself. In early October, Temple President John Fry and Board Chair Mitchell L. Morgan announced that the university and Barnett had “mutually agreed to terminate” the $55 million commitment. The university confirmed that no funds had been transferred prior to the cancellation and that all signage reflecting Barnett’s name had been removed.
In their communication to the university community, leadership noted that Barnett “strenuously” denied any wrongdoing. They also cited that he was managing a “life-threatening” medical issue, though the university did not provide further specifics, and the company has not addressed inquiries regarding Barnett’s health or his current role in the company’s leadership.
Business Model and Industry Impact
ABA Centers of America, headquartered at 110 E. Broward Blvd. in Fort Lauderdale, rose quickly to prominence within the behavioral health industry. The company grew rapidly, with a footprint spanning more than 10 states and a workforce exceeding 2,000 employees at its peak. Its growth was so rapid that it earned high rankings on the Inc. 5000 list in recent years.
Barnett, a serial entrepreneur with a background in real estate and a law degree from Nova Southeastern University—though he is not currently listed as a member of the Florida Bar—built the company from the ground up. His earlier venture, GateHouse Treatment, served as the foundation for ICBD Holdings, the parent company that now oversees ABA Centers, as well as other entities like Curative AI and Exact Billing Solutions.
In its statement to the South Florida Sun Sentinel, the company defended its business model as “disruptive to the status quo.”
“We always knew that our business model is disruptive to the status quo and upends current business models for both providers and payors,” the company stated. “It is also important to note that this investigation does not appear to be focused on the quality of the care that we provide.”
The company emphasized its commitment to its mission of providing early intervention for children on the autism spectrum, noting that it has helped diagnose and treat thousands of children. Regarding its operations, the company stated, “A plan of care is then developed by a clinician — a treatment plan that is individualized, data-driven and science-backed. That treatment plan establishes the amount of care needed for each client on a weekly basis, and the specifics of their treatment to maximize the clinical outcome. Our care decisions are guided by the treatment plan, which is implemented by a dedicated team of providers.”
The firm concluded its statement by noting that it is working to address the evolving standards of the healthcare industry and is continuing to increase its investment in staff training, compliance, and documentation. While the company faces intense scrutiny from both federal authorities and major insurers, it maintains that its primary goal remains the delivery of care to families in need.
