Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Behavioral Health Cost Sharing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee hears competing evidence on behavioral-health cost-sharing elimination, rolls bill over pending corrected fiscal analysis
Summary
The Senate Finance Committee heard competing testimony on whether to make permanent the elimination of out‑of‑pocket cost sharing for behavioral‑health services and postponed action to allow correction of conflicting fiscal analyses.
Senate Finance Committee members debated whether to make permanent a law that eliminates out‑of‑pocket cost sharing for behavioral‑health services. After extensive testimony from state analysts, providers and insurance representatives and disagreement over fiscal estimates, the committee rolled the bill over to allow sponsors and analysts to correct and reconcile the fiscal-impact report.
Senator Hickey, presenting Senate Bill 120, said earlier enactment of cost‑sharing elimination increased behavioral‑health utilization and that emerging data suggested limited premium impacts. “There was a call for evaluation… we have some pretty impressive statistics about the number of people that are increasing use of services,” Hickey said. Emily Pepin of the New Mexico Behavioral Health Providers Association urged the committee to vote yes, saying the measure “diminishes barriers and supports health for all New Mexicans.”
Opponents — represented by Brent Moore of America’s Health Insurance Plans — urged caution. Moore said the original law was intended as a test and that the committee should allow the sunset date to run and collect more data before making elimination permanent. He recommended extending the sunset rather than making the change permanent.
State Office of Superintendent of Insurance (OSI) witnesses reported carriers’ data showing increased utilization and direct reductions in consumer cost sharing. OSI testimony summarized carrier‑reported savings to consumers of just over $7 million in fiscal year 2023 and about $8 million in fiscal year 2024; the OSI witness also said unique individuals receiving behavioral‑health services rose from 27.9% in FY23 to 36.08% in FY24. Several committee members and the sponsor questioned discrepancies between fiscal‑impact reports (FIRs) provided to the committee; two versions of the FIR circulated during the hearing contained different three‑year cost estimates (figures discussed in committee ranged from roughly $34 million to $63 million). Members said the conflicting FIRs and assumptions about which plans absorb costs (health plan reserves, retiree funds, general fund) required more review.
After extended discussion and repeated requests for corrected materials, the committee decided to roll the bill over to the next day to allow analysts and the sponsor to reconcile the FIRs and provide clear fiscal language. The committee did not take a final vote on the bill during the hearing.
