NH committee hears testimony against involuntary admissions bill for people with substance use disorder
Loading...
Summary
Supporters and state officials urged caution on HB 17‑90 FN, saying evidence is mixed and New Hampshire lacks beds, staffing and funding; DHHS estimated construction of a 70‑bed facility at about $40 million and annual operating costs above $33 million. Advocates said voluntary, harm‑reduction services are more effective.
House lawmakers heard two hours of testimony on HB 17‑90 FN, a proposal to allow involuntary civil commitment for certain people with substance use disorder.
Representative Lucy Weber introduced the measure on behalf of Representative Long. John Burns, executive director of SOS Recovery Community Organization and a parent with lived experience, testified in opposition, describing his daughter’s unsuccessful outcomes after involuntary commitments and saying peer‑based, voluntary and harm‑reduction services produced lasting recovery for his family. “Most of the research out there shows it does not work,” Burns said, summarizing a literature review he referenced.
Sponsor Representative Long, who arrived late and signaled openness to a DHHS proposal to convert the bill into a study commission, told members that implementation questions are central: “What do we do about our capacity issues at New Hampshire Hospital? What should the maximum length of commitment be? And should aftercare be mandatory?” he asked.
Department of Health and Human Services witnesses framed the issue as both a policy and fiscal decision. Katya Fox, director of the Division for Behavioral Health, and Cynthia Pobonis, chief community integration officer at New Hampshire Hospital, said the bill as written would create substantial obligations without appropriations. Pobonis provided a planning estimate for a new 70‑bed facility of roughly $40,000,000 in construction costs and annual operating costs projected at approximately $33,300,000, with only about $2,300,000 offset by insurance revenue. She warned the estimate likely understates total impact because additional categories of people could meet the bill’s criteria, and the department would face added clinical, legal and IT demands.
Multiple advocacy groups, including New Futures and NAMI New Hampshire, urged the committee to pause. Jake Berry of New Futures cited mixed national evidence — noting a 2024 Massachusetts study that linked involuntary commitment to a small increase in post‑release overdose risk — and emphasized fiscal and infrastructure gaps. Holly Stevens of NAMI New Hampshire urged investing in voluntary treatment: “There is no evidence that involuntary SUD treatment leads to positive outcomes and likely leads to more negative outcomes,” she told lawmakers.
Committee members asked detailed questions about capacity, likely caseloads and differences between civil commitment and criminal diversion programs. No formal action was taken; the chair closed the public hearing and recessed the committee, giving sponsors, DHHS and advocates time to refine options.
The committee’s next steps were not announced on the record; sponsors signaled interest in a study commission or in scaled, implementation‑focused amendments before any vote.
