The five rows below carry the operative statutory language verbatim, each quote pulled from the official code. This page is one state from the full state-by-state reference. Nothing here is legal, tax, or financial advice.
The five-part test in brief
Whether an ABA practice needs a professional entity is a stack of five questions. The licensing act is the gateway, because an unlicensed profession is generally not a professional service and an ordinary entity governs. The professional-entity statute supplies the form and the ownership rule that applies if that form is used. The scope definition decides whether ABA is actually inside that statute. The corporate-practice doctrine, a separate body of law that often lives in the medical practice act or case law rather than the entity statute, is usually what forces licensed ownership and pushes outside capital into a management company. And the fee-splitting and anti-remuneration rules constrain management-fee economics even where ownership is open. The rows below run those five against this state's actual code, quoting the operative language so the position rests on the statute.
Ohio, provision by provision
Ohio
Ownership openYes. Behavior analysts are certified by the State Board of Psychology under Chapter 4783 as certified Ohio behavior analysts, and no person may engage in the practice of applied behavior analysis without that certificate. The existence of that credential raises the professional-entity question, but as the next rows show, the professional-entity statute does not reach Chapter 4783.
Ohio's professional-entity form is the professional association under Chapter 1785, and because Ohio reads license and certificate together, a certificated profession can in principle qualify. If that form is used, the association may issue stock only to persons licensed or certificated to render the same professional service, and only such persons may hold or transfer shares. But that restriction governs only if ABA is a professional service the statute reaches, which is the scope question in the next row.
It does not. The professional-association statute defines professional service by a closed list of Revised Code chapters. That list includes Chapter 4732, the psychology chapter, but not Chapter 4783, under which behavior analysts are certified. Because Chapter 4783 is omitted, ABA is not a professional service the statute reaches, so it need not be rendered through a professional association, and an ordinary LLC or corporation governs with open ownership.
Ownership. No Ohio rule requires licensed ownership of an ABA practice. The State Medical Board of Ohio takes the position that the corporate-practice-of-medicine doctrine no longer exists in the state, and the Revised Code authorizes physicians to be employed by corporations and limited liability companies, so a non-licensee may own a standard LLC or corporation that employs certified behavior analysts.
Clinical control. With no corporate-practice doctrine in force, nothing requires a licensed clinician to hold clinical control of the business or bars a lay owner from it. Ownership is open because neither equity nor clinical control is policed.
Unlike most states, Ohio places a remuneration restriction directly in the behavior-analyst chapter. The State Board of Psychology may discipline a certified Ohio behavior analyst for accepting commissions, rebates, or other remuneration for referrals, so this constraint reaches ABA on its own terms, alongside the federal Medicaid anti-kickback rules and payor contract terms that otherwise govern management-fee economics.
Outlook: how this verdict could change
Likelihood of change: Low. Ohio is not among the 2025 ownership-tightening states and no ABA-specific proposal has been identified. The verdict would change only if a new corporate-practice or ownership rule were enacted to reach ABA.
What to watch. Ohio professional-entity and healthcare-transaction activity; none currently reaches ABA.
Disruption if it changes: Low. A realistic change would add reporting or clinical-control terms rather than a new entity form.
Where professional advice is essential, not optional
Verbatim statutory text is a starting point, not a conclusion. Statutes are amended, agencies issue rules that fill them in, and courts interpret them, so the corporate-practice and fee-splitting questions in particular often turn on interpretation rather than the words on the page. Use this page to locate the operative provisions and to speak from the source, then confirm the current text against the official code and engage qualified Ohio counsel before acting. The entity verdict is also only one layer of a Ohio practice's obligations, alongside the facility and records rules and the Ohio Medicaid enrollment that discloses the entity and its owners. Nothing here is legal, tax, or financial advice.
The provisions quoted here change and are interpreted by agencies and courts. The official Ohio Revised Code and qualified Ohio counsel are the authoritative sources. Neither this page nor any secondary source should be relied on in place of direct verification and professional advice.