Lawmakers hear hours of testimony on bill to add PTSD coverage for first responders under workers' comp

Sen. Cora Newman (SD‑30) opened the Business and Labor Committee hearing on Senate Bill 394 by framing post‑traumatic stress disorder (PTSD/PTSI) as a physical, job‑related injury that can change brain structure. “PTSD is a physical injury,” Newman said, noting research on amygdala overactivity and hippocampal changes.

Newman urged the committee to view the bill as preventive and cost‑effective, placing the legislature’s fiscal question in context: she characterized the total system cost at about $890,000, with a Montana State Fund share that could be as much as $700,000 and a state agency cost near $100,000, then argued those figures were overstated. “I wanna make a strong case that this is gonna cost a lot less than is estimated in the fiscal note,” she told the committee.

Proponents across first‑responder organizations and labor groups gave detailed testimony. Joel Gaertig of the Montana State Firefighters Association cited Idaho’s 2019 law and said many states already provide comparable coverage; he also said Idaho experienced a 25% denial rate on PTSI claims. Dan Smith of the Montana Police Protective Association and George Richards of the Professional Fire Fighters council described peer‑support programs and treatment that had returned members to work. “The goal is to get people the help they need to get them back to work healthy,” Gaertig said.

Opponents from employer and insurer groups challenged the bill on cost and administration. Peter Strauss (Montana Self Insurers Association) warned of guaranteed workers’‑comp benefits and said NCCI (the National Council on Compensation Insurance) had flagged a potential minimum three‑percent cost increase for governmental entities in some settings; he also proposed Georgia’s HB451—a disability program outside workers’ compensation—as a model. “Additional coverage means additional costs,” Strauss said.

Informational witnesses from Montana State Fund and the Department of Labor and Industry described claims‑adjustment standards and how the system would evaluate causation. Mick Mazanek (Montana State Fund) explained that compensability requires a medical diagnosis and proof that the condition arose out of and in the course of employment by a preponderance of objective medical evidence. Quentin O'Connor (Chief Legal Counsel, DLI) discussed statutory distinctions between single‑event injuries and occupational diseases and how the bill’s effective‑date language would apply.

Committee members pressed sponsors and witnesses on data and comparisons. Representatives asked whether Idaho’s experience was comparable, whether Georgia’s alternative had been vetted, how NCCI class codes would reflect cost, and whether DSM diagnostic changes (a DSM update dated 07/01/2025 was cited in the draft bill) would affect claims. Witnesses agreed to provide additional state data and class‑code figures.

Sponsor Newman closed by saying the bill is an investment in retention and public safety and reiterated that, based on comparative studies, premium impacts would likely be minimal. The committee closed the hearing without a vote.

What's next: No roll call vote was recorded in the hearing; committee members requested supplemental actuarial and comparative data before further action.