Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Health Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs bill encouraging schools to use existing Medicaid reimbursement options for student health and mental health services
Summary
AB 322 would direct the California Department of Education to encourage local education agencies (LEAs) to participate in existing reimbursement programs so schools can bill Medi‑Cal and other funding streams for school‑based health and behavioral services; the committee moved the bill to Senate Appropriations.
The Senate Education Committee voted to move AB 322 by Assemblymember Ward to the Senate Appropriations Committee. The bill would require the California Department of Education to encourage local educational agencies (LEAs) to participate in existing reimbursement programs that can pay for school‑based health and behavioral health services, including Local Educational Agency (LEA) Billing Option programs and the statewide school‑linked behavioral health fee schedule.
Student advocates and school groups said the bill would help districts unlock federal and state funds to provide counseling, therapy and related services on campus. “California students shouldn’t have to wait until they’re in a crisis to receive care,” said Shivani Ramanathan, technology director at Generation Up, a student‑led advocacy group, adding that many schools lack resources to provide preventive services. Avantika Ravi, Generation Up’s policy advocacy director, told the committee that fewer than half of Medi‑Cal‑eligible school‑aged children currently receive required preventive services.
Supporters included county offices of education, the Health Officers Association of California, the California School Boards Association and mental‑health professional groups. Several school administrators and district officials testified the measure is not a mandate but an effort to increase awareness of existing funding options.
Opponents, including parent advocates and Moms for Liberty representatives, raised concerns about parental consent, privacy and the potential for schools to bill private insurance without explicit parental permission. Meg Madden, a parent volunteer, argued that public schools are already struggling to meet core academic responsibilities and warned of liability and quality concerns if schools expand clinical duties. Nicole Young of Moms for Liberty stated concerns about billing practices and the age of consent for some services.
Sen. Cabaldon, who moved the bill, described AB 322 as an “encouragement” rather than a mandate and emphasized that it would not create new obligations or new state funding. Senator Cho Bog (recorded as abstaining) said she supported the intent but expressed concerns about parental involvement and declined to vote yes; she indicated she would abstain. The committee recorded the motion to pass to Appropriations and later reported the item out of committee; the recorded final tally reported 4 yes, 0 no on the committee disposition noted in the hearing transcript.
Supporters said the bill seeks to help districts find existing sustainable funding for on‑site health services and would leave scope‑of‑practice and parental consent rules unchanged.
