Senate approves behavioral health package on bipartisan vote, sends bills to House
Feb. 14—SANTA FE — A sweeping plan to overhaul New Mexico's mental health and substance abuse treatment system is headed to the state House with bipartisan momentum.
The Senate voted Friday to approve three bills establishing a new behavioral health trust fund and requiring regional plans for crisis triage units, mobile responders and more.
The package of bills, Senate Bills 1, 2 and 3, passed with broad support, two of them on 37-5 votes and the third on a similar 37-4 vote. Most of the "no" votes were cast by Republican senators.
"This is a huge change from the way we've done things in the past," said Senate President Pro Tem Mimi Stewart, D-Albuquerque, during Friday's debate.
This year's push comes more than a decade after former Gov. Susana Martinez upended New Mexico's behavioral system in 2013, freezing Medicaid funding to 15 providers of fraud and overbilling. All the accused providers were later cleared of wrongdoing.
Sen. Jay Block, R-Rio Rancho, said the Martinez administration had "decimated" the state's behavioral health system, a claim many Democratic lawmakers have also made in recent years.
"Today, we're here to do what's right to fix a problem," Block said.
Behavioral health has emerged as a key issue during the 60-day legislative session that will reach its halfway point next week, as lawmakers look for ways to reduce violent crime, homelessness and drug use.
New Mexico has one of the nation's highest suicide rates, and more than one-third of state residents reported anxiety or a depressive disorder in 2023, according to Kaiser Family Foundation data.
During Friday's debate, several senators spoke about their own families' experiences with mental health and addiction issues.
Sen. Martin Hickey, D-Albuquerque, mentioned his children's sobriety struggles, saying, "Rare is a family that doesn't have this, and it cuts across all spectrums."
Sen. Liz Stefanics, D-Cerrillos, estimated half of New Mexicans will at some point come into contact with the state's behavioral health system, either due to mental health or substance abuse issues.
"We know there's a vast population," Stefanics said.
Governor largely on board with plan
Under the plan approved Friday, the state judiciary would take on a larger role in approving regional behavioral health plans, while the state Health Care Authority would remain in charge of overseeing funding.
That would be a significant change from the current system, which largely falls under the executive branch's jurisdiction.
Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham recently expressed misgivings about the judicial branch's readiness to shoulder a heavier oversight role.
But the Governor's Office indicated Friday those concerns have largely been resolved after negotiations with legislators and Supreme Court Chief Justice David Thomson.
Meanwhile, some changes were also made to the behavioral health package before the full Senate vote, including removing a $1 billion appropriation for the new proposed trust fund.
Money for the new fund is now expected to be provided in a separate budget bill during this year's 60-day session, though Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth, D-Santa Fe, said it's unlikely the appropriation will end up hitting the $1 billion mark this year.
While most senators expressed support for the trust fund plan, Sen. Antonio "Moe" Maestas, D-Albuquerque, said the money should be put to work now instead of set aside for future use.
"We have a permanent income stream — it's called taxes," Maestas said.
Bipartisan support was gradually cultivated
The push to reshape New Mexico's behavioral health system has created unlikely political partnerships, including Block working with Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, D-Albuquerque, on amendments to the package.
In addition, the chamber's Democratic and Republican floor leaders — Wirth and Sen. William Sharer of Farmington — teamed up on one of the bills in the package.
Work on the package began in earnest after a special session called last year by Lujan Grisham ended with the Democratic-controlled Legislature largely ignoring the governor's crime-focused agenda.
Several legislators, staffers and city leaders traveled to Miami last year, along with behavioral health advocates, to tour a Miami-Dade County diversion program that has drawn accolades for its success.
Sen. George Muñoz, D-Gallup, cited those site visits on the Senate floor Friday, saying the state has seen little return after spending almost $2.4 billion on behavioral health programs over the last three years.
In addition, the state's behavioral health collaborative has not met in over one year and does not have an appointed director.
"We haven't seen the needle move ... we haven't seen that change in New Mexico," Muñoz said.
He and other senators said the new approach holds promise in a state with high rates of poverty, drug overdose deaths and mental illness.
Sen. Angel Charley, D-Acoma Pueblo, said those problems are particularly acute among the state's Native American population.
"With the passage of this legislation, I can go home and look my people in the eye and tell them resources are coming," said Charley.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
I'm a doctor and a recovering addict. America can't lose ground on the opioids fight now.
I'm a doctor and a recovering addict. America can't lose ground on the opioids fight now. There's talk of scaling back key programs and cutting funding that has proved to save lives. Doing so wouldn't just slow progress, it would send us backward. Show Caption Hide Caption FDA Approves non-Opioid painkiller to combat addiction crisis The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved Journavx, a new non-opioid painkiller for short-term pain in adults. Cover Media - Shareable Overdose deaths in the U.S. have decreased by almost 27% in the past year. Medicaid and federal grants have played a crucial role in providing access to treatment and resources like naloxone. Proposed budget cuts to these programs could reverse the progress made in combating the opioid crisis. In 2004, I nearly lost everything to opioid addiction. I was a practicing physician, a husband and a father, and I was also deeply dependent on the same medications I once prescribed to others. My recovery was hard-earned and required structure, accountability and people who refused to give up on me. That experience is why I've dedicated my life to helping others do what I did: Survive long enough to get better. And today, I can say something I never imagined possible two decades ago: We are finally making real, measurable progress in the fight against drug overdoses in America. Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released data showing that overdose deaths in the United States have dropped by nearly 27% from 2023 to 2024. After years of heartbreaking headlines and rising death tolls, we're finally seeing a shift in the right direction. These aren't just abstract percentages, they represent real people. Parents tucking their kids in at night, employees returning to work, neighbors rebuilding relationships and young people getting second chances. Opinion: We targeted drug cartels to stop fentanyl. Now, overdose deaths are dropping. Cutting Medicaid will set us back in the opioid fight This progress didn't happen by accident. It happened because of deliberate, sustained action backed by bipartisan support and a strong federal commitment to addressing this crisis head-on. Medicaid, the largest payer of substance use disorder treatment in the United States, has given millions of Americans access to lifesaving care. Federal grants have helped get naloxone into the hands of first responders. Community-based organizations are expanding access to treatment and recovery services in ways that simply weren't possible a decade ago. As someone who's worked in both medicine and public policy, I've seen firsthand the impact of these investments. We've transformed what used to be a disconnected patchwork into a system that increasingly meets people where they are ‒ in emergency rooms, in jails, on the streets and in their homes. But now, as Congress and the administration debate the next federal budget, I'm worried we're at risk of forgetting how we got here. There's talk of scaling back key programs and cutting funding that has proved to save lives. Doing so wouldn't just slow progress, it would send us backward. Signs of opioid addiction: If your teenager was addicted to opioids, would you know? It's harder than you think. | Opinion Fighting the opioid epidemic doesn't have to be partisan That's particularly dangerous for states that are legally required to balance their budget every year. If the federal government pulls back, that doesn't eliminate the need for services. It just forces states to make impossible decisions ‒ raise taxes, slash other essential services or cut overdose prevention programs that are working. When that happens, it's not numbers on a spreadsheet that suffer. It's real people. The good news is that this doesn't have to be a partisan fight. Republicans and Democrats alike have supported these programs because they deliver results. Because they keep families together. Because they reduce crime, lower health care costs and strengthen our workforce. These aren't just moral investments, they're economic ones. Every dollar spent on treatment and prevention saves several more down the line in avoided emergency care, incarceration and lost productivity. We know what works. The question now is whether we will have the courage to keep doing it. I believe we will. I believe our leaders, including those in the Trump administration and this Congress, understand the stakes. But they need to hear from us. They need to know this progress is real, it's saving lives and it's worth protecting. We've come too far to retreat now. Let's keep our foot on the gas and finish the job. Dr. Stephen Loyd is the chief medical officer of Cedar Recovery, president of the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners and a member of the Tennessee Opioid Abatement Council. He is a physician in long-term recovery.
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
The GOP's big bill would bring changes to Medicaid for millions
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has been clear about his red line as the Senate takes up the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act: no Medicaid cuts. But what, exactly, would be a cut? Hawley and other Republicans acknowledge that the main cost-saving provision in the bill – new work requirements on able-bodied adults who receive health care through the Medicaid program -- would cause millions of people to lose their coverage. All told, estimates are 10.9 million fewer people would have health coverage under the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. That includes some 8 million fewer in the Medicaid program, including 5.2 million dropping off because of the new eligibility requirements. 'I know that will reduce the number of people on Medicaid,' Hawley told a small scrum of reporters in the hallways at the Capitol. 'But I'm for that because I want people who are able bodied but not working to work.' Hawley and other Republicans are walking a politically fine line on how to reduce federal spending on Medicaid while also promising to protect a program that serves some 80 million Americans and is popular with the public. As the party pushes ahead on President Donald Trump' s priority package, Republicans insist they are not cutting the vital safety net program but simply rooting out what they call waste, fraud and abuse. Whether that argument lands with voters could go a long way toward determining whether Trump's bill ultimately ends up boosting — or dragging down — Republicans as they campaign for reelection next year. Republicans say that it's wrong to call the reductions in health care coverage 'cuts.' Instead, they've characterized the changes as rules that would purge people who are taking advantage of the system and protect it for the most vulnerable who need it most. What's in the bill House Republicans wrote the bill with instructions to find $880 billion in cuts from programs under the purview of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has a sprawling jurisdiction that includes Medicaid. In the version of the bill that the House passed on a party-line vote last month, the overall cuts ended up exceeding that number. The Kaiser Family Foundation projects that the bill will result in a $793 billion reduction in spending on Medicaid. Additionally, the House Ways & Means Committee, which handles federal tax policy, imposed a freeze on a health care provider tax that many states impose. Critics say the tax improperly boosts federal Medicaid payments to the states, but supporters like Hawley say it's important funding for rural hospitals. 'What we're doing here is an important and, frankly, heroic thing to preserve the program so that it doesn't become insolvent,' Speaker Mike Johnson said on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, meanwhile, has denounced the bill as an 'assault on the healthcare of the American people' and warned years of progress in reducing the number of uninsured people is at risk. Who would lose health coverage The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the GOP's proposed changes to federal health programs would result in 10.9 million fewer people having health care coverage. Nearly 8 million fewer people would be enrolled in Medicaid by 2034 under the legislation, the CBO found, including 5.2 million people who would lose coverage due to the proposed work requirements. It said 1.4 million immigrants without legal status would lose coverage in state programs. The new Medicaid requirements would apply to nondisabled adults under age 65 who are not caretakers or parents, with some exceptions. The bill passed by the U.S. House stipulates that those eligible would need to work, take classes, or record community service for 80 hours per month. The Kaiser Family Foundation notes that more than 90% of people enrolled in Medicaid already meet those criteria. The legislation also penalizes states that fund health insurance for immigrants who have not confirmed their immigration status, and the CBO expects that those states will stop funding Medicaid for those immigrants altogether. Why Republicans want Medicaid changes Republicans have cited what they call the out-of-control spending in federal programs to explain their rationale for the changes proposed in the legislation. 'What we are trying to do in the One Big Beautiful Bill is ensuring that limited resources are protected for pregnant women, for children, for seniors, for individuals with disabilities,' said Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., in a speech on the House floor. Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso argued that Medicaid recipients who are not working spend their time watching television and playing video games rather than looking for employment. Republicans also criticize the CBO itself, the congressional scorekeeper, questioning whether its projections are accurate. The CBO score for decades has been providing non-partisan analysis of legislation and budgetary matters. Its staff is prohibited from making political contributions and is currently led by a former economic adviser for the George W. Bush administration. What polling shows While Republicans argue that their signature legislation delivers on Trump's 2024 campaign promises, health care isn't one of the president's strongest issues with Americans. Most U.S. adults, 56%, disapproved of how Trump was handling health care policy in CNN polling from March. And according to AP VoteCast, about 6 in 10 voters in the November election said they wanted the government 'more involved' in ensuring that Americans have health care coverage. Only about 2 in 10 wanted the government less involved in this, and about 2 in 10 said its involvement was about right. Half of American adults said they expected the Trump administration's policies to increase their family's health care costs, according to a May poll from KFF, and about 6 in 10 believed those policies would weaken Medicaid. If the federal government significantly reduced Medicaid spending, about 7 in 10 adults said they worried it would negatively impact nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care providers in their community. For Hawley, the 'bottom lines' are omitting provisions that could cause rural hospitals to close and hardworking citizens to lose their benefits. He and other Republicans are especially concerned about the freeze on the providers' tax in the House's legislation that they warn could hurt rural hospitals. 'Medicaid benefits for people who are working or who are otherwise qualified,' Hawley said. 'I do not want to see them cut.'
CBS News
14 hours ago
- CBS News
Medicaid enrollees fear losing health coverage if Congress enacts work requirements
It took Crystal Strickland years to qualify for Medicaid, which she needs for a heart condition. Strickland, who's unable to work due to her condition, chafed when she learned that the U.S. House had passed a bill that would impose a work requirement for many able-bodied people to get health insurance coverage through the low-cost, government-run plan for lower-income people. "What sense does that make?" she asked. "What about the people who can't work but can't afford a doctor?" The measure is part of the version of President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful" bill that cleared the House last month and is now up for consideration in the Senate. Trump is seeking to have it passed by July 4. The bill, as it stands, would cut taxes and government spending — and also upend portions of the nation's social safety net. For proponents, the ideas behind the work requirement are simple: Crack down on fraud and stand on the principle that taxpayer-provided health coverage isn't for those who can work but aren't. The measure includes exceptions for those who are under 19 or over 64, those with disabilities, pregnant women, main caregivers for young children, people recently released from prisons or jails, or during certain emergencies. It would apply only to adults who receive Medicaid through expansions that 40 states chose to undertake as part of the 2010 health insurance overhaul. Many details of how the changes would work would be developed later, leaving several unknowns and causing anxiety among recipients who worry that their illnesses might not be enough to exempt them. Advocates and sick and disabled enrollees worry, based largely on their experience, that even those who might be exempted from work requirements under the law could still lose benefits because of increased or hard-to-meet paperwork mandates. Strickland, a 44-year-old former server, cook, and construction worker who lives in Fairmont, North Carolina, said she could not afford to go to a doctor for years because she wasn't able to work. She finally received a letter this month saying she would receive Medicaid coverage, she said. "It's already kind of tough to get on Medicaid," said Strickland, who has lived in a tent and times and subsisted on nonperishable food thrown out by stores. "If they make it harder to get on, they're not going to be helping." Steve Furman is concerned that his 43-year-old son, who has autism, could lose coverage. The bill the House adopted would require Medicaid enrollees to show that they work, volunteer or go to school at least 80 hours a month to continue to qualify. A disability exception would likely apply to Furman's son, who previously worked in an eyeglasses plant in Illinois for 15 years despite behavioral issues that may have gotten him fired elsewhere. Furman said government bureaucracies are already impossible for his son to navigate, even with help. It took him a year to help get his son onto Arizona's Medicaid system when they moved to Scottsdale in 2022, and it took time to set up food benefits. But he and his wife, who are retired, say they don't have the means to support his son fully. "Should I expect the government to take care of him?" he asked. "I don't know, but I do expect them to have humanity." About 71 million adults are enrolled in Medicaid now. And most of them — around 92% — are working, caregiving, attending school or disabled. Earlier estimates of the budget bill from the Congressional Budget Office found that about 5 million people stand to lose coverage. A KFF tracking poll conducted in May found that the enrollees come from across the political spectrum. About one-fourth are Republicans; roughly one-third are Democrats. The poll found that about 7 in 10 adults are worried that federal spending reductions on Medicaid will lead to more uninsured people and would strain health care providers in their area. About half said they were worried reductions would hurt their ability or their family to get and pay for health care. Amaya Diana, an analyst at KFF, points to work requirements launched in Arkansas and Georgia as keeping people off Medicaid without increasing employment. Amber Bellazaire, a policy analyst at the Michigan League for Public Policy, said the process to verify that Medicaid enrollees meet the work requirements could be a key reason people would be denied or lose eligibility. "Massive coverage losses just due to an administrative burden rather than ineligibility is a significant concern," she said. One KFF poll respondent, Virginia Bell, a retiree in Starkville, Mississippi, said she's seen sick family members struggle to get onto Medicaid, including one who died recently without coverage. She said she doesn't mind a work requirement for those who are able, but worries about how that would be sorted out. "It's kind of hard to determine who needs it and who doesn't need it," she said. Lexy Mealing, 54 of Westbury, New York, who was first diagnosed with breast cancer in 2021 and underwent a double mastectomy and reconstruction surgeries, said she fears she may lose the medical benefits she has come to rely on, though people with "serious or complex" medical conditions could be granted exceptions. She now works about 15 hours a week in "gig" jobs but isn't sure she can work more as she deals with the physical and mental toll of the cancer. Mealing, who used to work as a medical receptionist in a pediatric neurosurgeon's office before her diagnosis and now volunteers for the American Cancer Society, went on Medicaid after going on short-term disability. "I can't even imagine going through treatments right now and surgeries and the uncertainty of just not being able to work and not having health insurance," she said. Felix White, who has Type I diabetes, first qualified for Medicaid after losing his job as a computer programmer several years ago. The Oreland, Pennsylvania, man has been looking for a job, but finds that at 61, it's hard to land one. Medicaid, meanwhile, pays for a continuous glucose monitor and insulin and funded foot surgeries last year, including one that kept him in the hospital for 12 days. "There's no way I could have afforded that," he said. "I would have lost my foot and probably died." ___ Associated Press writer Susan Haigh in Hartford, Connecticut, contributed to this article.
