Reversing lower court decisions, the Supreme Court has ruled that the province of British Columbia does not have to foot the bill for an effective, but expensive treatment program for autistic children.

Four families had sued the B.C. government, arguing it should pay for the costly treatment of their autistic children. They argued that Autism Spectrum Disorder is a medical disability, and as such, merits health-care funding.

The B.C. Supreme Court and later the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that the children's constitutional rights were violated by the province's refusal to cover the cost of a treatment called applied behavioral analysis, or ABA.

In its ruling Friday, however, the Supreme Court disagreed and in a unanimous decision, overturned the previous decisions.

The case hinged on differing views of the effectiveness of the treatment. Many parents of autistic children say the program, developed by Dr. Ivar Lovaas at the University of California, produces dramatic results if provided early to autistic kids.

The problem is it is offered one-on-one by a behavioural specialist and can cost around $40,000 to $60,000 a year, per child.

While some provinces pay, others only cover some of the costs. British Columbia pays for some treatments for autism but they argued that this treatment was unproven and not medically necessary.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Canada Health Act only provides for physican-provided and hospital-provided services. The decision to fund any other form of treatment should be left to the discretion of the province, they said.

"The Canada Health Act and the relevant British Columbia legislation do not promise that any Canadian will receive funding for all medically required treatment," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote.

"All that is conferred is core funding for services delivered by medical practitioners and, at the province's discretion, funding or partial funding for non-core services.''

McLachlin added that she sympathized with the parents and the children. "However, the issue before us is not what the public health system should provide, which is a matter for Parliament and the legislature,'' she wrote.

Nevertheless, Robert Shalka is disappointed the court won't compel government to pay for treatment he is convinced has proved invaluable to his autistic son.

"We can't stop the therapy that's been helping him, Shalka told CTV News. "The long and short of it is, I'll have to dip into my own savings."

If the nation's highest court had ruled in the child's favour and compelled B.C. to pay for the treatment, provinces across Canada could have been compelled to extend medicare coverage to Applied Behavioral Analysis.

For that reason, the other nine provinces and the federal government all intervened in the case, arguing along with British Columbia that there was no discrimination.

B.C. resident Jean Lewis, who began the fight for funding six years ago, isn't giving up.

"If you replace the word autism in this judgment with the word gay, with the word aboriginal, with the word black or woman it would clearly be discrimination," she said. "But because these children have a mental disability the discrimination continues."

In an effort to change that, families with autistic children are launching class action lawsuits in several provinces, hoping litigation will help them secure the financial help they need.