Committee reviews broad DHS and DCT policy packages, raising questions on data sharing and medical authority

The Human Services Finance and Policy Committee on March 17, 2026 took up extensive agency policy packages from the Department of Human Services (DHS) and Direct Care and Treatment (DCT) that would make technical updates and new clarifying authorities related to background studies, licensing, program integrity and limited medical decision making.

DCT overview: Kerry Brown, legislative director for DCT, said the bill carries forward statutory cleanups linked to DCT's separation from DHS, clarifies who may review data challenges, extends provisional return periods and requests narrow authority to allow the executive medical director to authorize non‑emergency medical treatments in instances where a patient lacks decision‑making capacity and no guardian or relative is available. Dr. Kylian Stevens, DCT's executive medical director, described that limited authority as a way to provide routine, necessary care when a court order or guardian cannot be obtained in time and said safeguards and review options would remain in place.

Data‑sharing and law enforcement: Members repeatedly asked what DCT and DHS would not share with federal law enforcement; agency staff said they would continue to share information required by federal or state law (including compliance with federal notification requirements in limited circumstances) and that the bill's language is intended to be clarifying rather than expansive.

DHS/OIG and licensing package: DHS OIG staff described a large package of background‑study amendments (including adding an order of protection for financial abuse as a disqualification), transferring legacy study types into the modern background study system, closing change‑of‑ownership loopholes, removing standing‑order requirements for certain naloxone supplies, clarifying temporary immediate‑suspension authority, expanding pre‑payment review/site‑visit authority, and clarifying stop‑payment and appeal timelines. DHS argued much of the language is federal‑compliance or cleanup, but members voiced concern about potential operational impacts and the timing of agency‑driven changes.

Behavioral health clarifications: The Department also presented a behavioral health amendment package that reaffirms that emergency behavioral health and mobile crisis services may not be charged to patients, adds tobacco‑use screening requirements in mental‑health diagnostic assessments, clarifies supervision/affiliation limits for mental‑health professionals, and accelerates some peer‑recovery certification timelines.

Member concerns and process friction: Several legislators expressed frustration with the pace at which agency‑drafted policy packages were presented and urged earlier, more collaborative vetting with lawmakers and stakeholders. Members asked for concrete examples of what would and would not be shared with federal entities, pressed on the scope of the proposed medical‑decision authority at DCT, and warned against unintended cost shifts to counties or providers. Agency witnesses said many provisions are technical and no new fiscal note is anticipated, but acknowledged some items merit further review.

Outcome: Committee members adopted some technical amendments during the hearing (the transcript records adoption of at least one agency amendment labeled A1/A7 in different bills) and laid the agency packages over for further discussion and extended public testimony. Members asked agencies to return with clearer examples, cost implications where applicable, and additional stakeholder engagement before the committee advances final recommendations.

Next steps: Agencies and members agreed to continued conversations; the committee scheduled additional extended sessions to parse the multi‑section packages and allow for deeper stakeholder input.