Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mental Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers consider higher rates and new reimbursements for psychiatric residential treatment facilities
Summary
Senate Bill 23-99 would increase reimbursement categories for psychiatric residential treatment facilities (PRTFs) to reflect licensing and care-cost increases, including coverage of therapeutic leave days; the department said the change would increase state costs by roughly $1.05 million.
Get email alerts on the Mental Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representative Matt Ruby presented Senate Bill 23-99, which directs the Department of Health and Human Services to adjust administrative rules to increase reimbursement levels for psychiatric residential treatment facilities (PRTFs). Ruby told the committee the current PRTF rates were set decades ago and do not reflect contemporary licensing, electronic records, cybersecurity, accreditation audits and other costs.
The bill would reclassify some personnel costs (for example, clinical supervisors) from administrative categories into direct-reimbursement categories and would add reimbursement for therapeutic leave days — days when a patient is home or at another location but facilities still provide supportive services and retain the bed. Ruby said one PRTF provider, Dakota Boys and Girls Ranch, has been operating at sustained deficits and that the changes aim to improve long-term financial sustainability for statewide providers.
The department’s testimony clarified that some costs are federally matched while therapeutic leave days currently are not reimbursed; the fiscal note estimates roughly $1.05 million in additional state and federal costs tied to those changes, with the largest share tied to therapeutic-leave coverage. Committee members expressed interest in broader rate-setting work and value-based purchasing related to PRTF reimbursement; department staff said additional interim work was underway but the bill was not included in the governor’s budget.
The record shows detailed questioning and department responses but no final committee vote recorded in the provided excerpt.
