Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Behavioral Health Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would let patients get annual behavioral‑health wellness visits from trained clinicians, sponsors say
Summary
A bill would require insurers and Medicaid to cover an annual behavioral‑health wellness visit performed by a trained behavioral clinician, supporters said, describing the visit as a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment distinct from brief primary‑care screening.
House Bill 6-65, sponsored by Delegate Jamila Woods, would require Medicaid and commercial insurers to cover and reimburse an annual behavioral‑health wellness visit delivered by a trained behavioral health clinician (for example, a licensed social worker or licensed professional counselor). The visit is described in testimony as an in‑depth biopsychosocial assessment — distinct from primary‑care screening questions — that allows clinicians to make an accurate diagnosis where appropriate and to provide preventive behavioral health interventions.
Supporters including the National Association of Social Workers (Maryland chapter), behavioral‑health provider representatives and children’s hospitals argued the measure would make behavioral health parity more tangible, destigmatize help‑seeking, and create an alternative access point that could reduce emergency department psychiatric visits and other high‑cost downstream services. Alyssa Glickstein of Children’s National suggested the committee explicitly include children and youth (ages 0–21) in the coverage language.
Insurers opposed the bill as drafted. Witnesses from the League of Life and Health Insurers, major carriers and MHCC representatives said routine primary‑care wellness visits already include behavioral‑health screening and that there are workforce shortages in specialty behavioral health that could limit immediate access. Carrier representatives urged strengthening integration with primary care and focusing on workforce expansion and cited concerns about implementation, network adequacy and program cost estimates. Supporters responded that this bill is about parity and early intervention and that the MHCC and other analyses show modest premium impact when the covered population is narrowly targeted.
Committee discussion focused on workforce capacity, how primary‑care screening differs from a full behavioral‑health assessment, and the potential for program design to minimize unintended demand shocks. Supporters asked for favorable consideration with technical amendments; the committee did not vote during the hearing.
