The Commission for the Rights of Persons with Disability (CRPD) has lifted its blanket ban on refunds for Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) therapy after the Commissioner for Education, within the Office of the Ombudsman, found the policy to be unreasonable, unjust and improperly discriminatory.

In a statement, the Office of the Ombudsman said the decision followed a complaint filed by a mother whose requests for refunds for ABA therapy required by her daughters had been refused under the Therapy Refund Scheme.

The complaint, lodged on 24 July 2026, was assigned to Commissioner for Education Chief Justice Emeritus Vincent De Gaetano, who investigated the CRPD's refusal to reimburse parents for privately obtained ABA therapy despite the government already funding similar services in other settings.

The CRPD had maintained that ABA therapy was unregulated in Malta, lacked established local standards and could pose risks if not applied appropriately and ethically.

However, the mother said the position was contradictory and discriminatory, since ABA-based services were already being funded by the government and provided within the state education system.

She also explained that private therapy had become the only viable option for her family following a serious incident involving one of her daughters at a state-contracted service provider.

During his investigation, the Commissioner examined the CRPD's position, correspondence exchanged with the complainant and documentation showing that the government funded ABA-based services provided through third parties.

The Commissioner found that while the CRPD objected to refunding privately obtained ABA therapy on the grounds that it was unregulated, the same type of therapy was being financed through public resources in other settings.

He said this distinction was inconsistent and could result in improper discrimination against parents who, for valid reasons, needed to obtain ABA therapy privately.

The investigation also considered the mother's particular circumstances, including her loss of confidence in the state-contracted provider following the incident involving her daughter and the considerable costs she was incurring for private therapy.

The CRPD maintained that its position was based on concerns about the safety and wellbeing of persons with disability, as well as the absence of a regulatory framework for ABA therapy.

In an Interim Opinion issued on 3 October 2026, De Gaetano concluded that the blanket refusal to provide refunds or tax credits for ABA therapy raised serious issues of maladministration.

He considered the policy unreasonable, unjust, improperly discriminatory and wrong in principle, particularly given that the government itself funded ABA-based services.

The Commissioner therefore recommended that the CRPD stop applying its blanket veto on refunds and tax credits for ABA therapy.

He also directed the complainant to submit the necessary application for the therapy refund, together with the required supporting documentation.

Following the Commissioner's intervention, the CRPD informed the Office of the Ombudsman that it had been engaging with ABA therapists to establish which services would qualify for reimbursement.

On 30 October 2026, the CRPD confirmed that the blanket ban on ABA therapy refunds had been lifted.

The commission also confirmed that applications submitted since the Therapy Refund Scheme began in 2023 were being reviewed, and that eligible pending applications would be refunded once the necessary information had been obtained.

The CRPD further said it would publish a list of ABA therapists whose services would qualify under the scheme and assess other therapists where parents requested such assessments.

The Commissioner said a just and equitable solution had been reached, both for the complainant and for other persons in similar circumstances.

The Office of the Ombudsman said the case was therefore closed as resolved by the CRPD during the investigation, without the need for the Commissioner to issue a Final Opinion.