Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Healthcare Workforce Wellbeing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers bill to bar intrusive mental-health questions on professional licensing applications
Summary
House Bill 42-77 would amend the public health code to restrict licensure questions to current ability and risk to patient safety, aiming to reduce stigma and encourage health-care workers to seek mental-health care without fear of licensing consequences.
Representative Paul Bierlein introduced House Bill 42-77 to the House Health Policy Committee and spoke in favor of the legislation, saying narrowly tailored licensure questions protect patient safety without deterring clinicians from seeking mental-health care.
"In some states when medical professionals apply for a license or renew an existing one, they are asked to provide...questions related to their physical and mental health," Bierlein told the committee. "The reality is that many in the medical field chose not to get help for treatable mental health conditions because they fear it will endanger their license." He described HB 42-77 as a prophylactic measure that would limit licensing applications to two narrowly worded items: whether the applicant currently poses a risk to patient safety and whether the applicant can perform essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation.
Dr. Britney Taylor, a double-boarded internist and pediatrician practicing in Flint, testified in support and described physician burnout and the professional climate that discourages help-seeking. "We must stop framing help seeking as a weakness," Taylor said. She urged the committee to codify the current Michigan practice into statute to prevent administrative changes from reintroducing intrusive questions.
Dr. Stephanie Simons, chief medical officer for the Lorna Breen Heroes Foundation, joined the hearing by Zoom and also supported the bill. Simons described national evidence and a Mississippi example in which removing look‑back mental-health questions led to increased self-reporting for care. She told lawmakers removing such questions and improving transparency about credentialing questions increases economic certainty for workers and encourages clinicians to seek care.
Committee members asked how the bill would preserve existing safeguards for patient safety. Simons and other witnesses explained the bill does not remove mechanisms to address impairment; instead, it eliminates look‑back questions about diagnoses and treatment while retaining impairment-focused questions and existing monitoring and professional health programs. "We're not asking look back questions on diagnosis or treatment of mental health care," Simons said. "What we're asking to be codified into law is that we're not asking look back questions." She noted hospitals and state professional-health programs retain monitoring and disciplinary mechanisms for impaired clinicians.
Witnesses and the sponsor emphasized that the bill applies to all licensed health professions and that gaps in provider networks and timely access to mental-health services remain a separate problem.
Several physician and hospital organizations filed cards indicating support without oral testimony, including the Michigan State Medical Society and Michigan Health and Hospital Association.
No committee vote on HB 42-77 was recorded in the transcript; testimony concluded and the committee proceeded to other bills.
