Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Substance Use Treatment Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel considers state certification and ombudsman for outpatient substance‑use treatment programs
Summary
The SB 495 subcommittee reviewed gaps in oversight for outpatient substance‑use treatment and discussed expanding DHHS certification and ombudsman authority to improve program‑level oversight; the subcommittee voted by voice to recommend further legislation and set a full committee work session in early October.
The subcommittee on SB 495 convened to examine legislation that would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to certify outpatient substance‑use treatment programs and to expand oversight mechanisms for programs that do not accept Medicaid.
DHHS overview: Jenny O'Higgins, legislative liaison for behavioral health at DHHS, told the panel that partial hospitalization, outpatient, and intensive outpatient services fall under the ASAM continuum and would be within the bill's scope. "Partial hospitalization is considered outpatient, and so that would fall under this bill," O'Higgins said.
Problem identified: Several witnesses and legislators described gaps in oversight when programs operate outside Medicaid or contractual arrangements. DHHS and BDAS staff explained that clinical staff may be licensed or certified (licensed clinical supervisors, licensed alcohol and drug counselors), but programs can also employ unlicensed support staff or operate with no centralized program rules; large, unregulated owners from out of state were cited as a concern.
Why certification: Proponents argued that program‑level certification gives DHHS the standards and authority to investigate systemic program problems—such as inappropriate group sizes, use of discredited models, or organizational cultures that intimidate vulnerable clients—where licensing individual clinicians alone is insufficient. Jamie Powers, CEO of Gatehouse Treatment, said a proactive certification process "gives people an idea of who's out there, what's right, and allows the department to have a set of standards" for quality and safety.
Ombudsman and complaint process: Committee members discussed whether expanding the ombudsman’s role or creating a broader investigatory office would be sufficient without certification and rule‑making. DHHS noted the ombudsman currently oversees contracted department programs; without certification, the ombudsman would not have a rule set to enforce for non‑contracted providers.
Implementation and cost: DHHS acknowledged implementation requires staff and funding; prior session fiscal notes exist. The draft amendment includes "subject to available funding" language as a practical constraint. Members pressed for a clear fiscal estimate to accompany any final draft.
Outcome and next steps: After discussion, the subcommittee chair moved to recommend SB 495 for future legislation and was seconded; members voiced "aye." The subcommittee will forward the recommendation to the full committee for the Oct. 9 work session; interim study reports are due Oct. 25. DHHS and advocacy groups (including New Futures) agreed to continue drafting to converge on language that protects vulnerable clients while preserving clinically valuable innovation.
The hearing concluded with the chair thanking participants and adjourning the session.
