Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Behavioral Health Peer Support topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to certify family peer supporters wins broad testimony; technical licensing issues remain
Summary
House Bill 76 would add family peer support to Montana’s behavioral health practice scope and create certification and a candidate pathway; supporters said certification improves outcomes and saves Medicaid dollars while the Department of Labor flagged a technical licensure provision.
Representative S.J. Howell opened the hearing on House Bill 76 on March 17, describing the bill as an interim-committee measure to add family peer support specialists for caregivers of children with special health care needs and behavioral health challenges and to create a certification path.
Howell said the bill adds "family peer support" to the scope of behavioral health practices, defines the role and scope, and creates eligibility for certification. "This doesn't create a new program. It just creates the certification for the existing program," Howell said.
Proponents described lived experience, workforce development and savings. Beth Ayers of Montana's Peer Network said certification ensures standards and trauma-informed training; she cited a pilot finding that "92% of the families surveyed felt the quality of their family's life had improved since having family peer support" and presented a per-full-time-worker annual Medicaid savings figure reported by the network. Kayla Myers and other family peer supporters testified that certification would professionalize the role, increase access, and support families navigating complex systems.
Technical concerns and candicacy pathway: Quentin O'Connor, chief legal counsel for the Department of Labor and Industry (DLI), said the department takes no position on creating a license type but raised a technical problem with Section 4 (candidate licensure). O'Connor explained that the bill establishes a candidate license based on supervised work experience but does not provide statutory authority to establish the supervised-work-experience program for either behavioral health or family peer supporters. He suggested either striking Section 4 or adding statutory authority to create supervised work experience requirements.
Committee questions focused on the candidacy pathway and supervised hours. Proponents said candidacy would pair training with supervised practice, including additional supervision and a proposed work-experience requirement designed to protect families and ensure longevity in the field. DLI staff said leaving supervised-work-experience requirements to rulemaking would give the board flexibility; they also noted the board could adjust hours if experience shows the initial number is not feasible.
No committee vote is recorded in the transcript. Sponsors said they would bring an amendment addressing DLI's technical concern.
