Summary#
The Expand the Behavioral Health Workforce Now Act is an introduced bill that would create a new law, not amend an existing one. It would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue non-mandatory guidance to States on using Medicaid and CHIP to support the behavioral health workforce; its stated goal is to improve that workforce, especially in rural and underserved areas. The bill is not law, and whether it will pass is uncertain.
- The Secretary must issue the guidance within 12 months after enactment.
- The guidance must cover strategies to increase education, training, recruitment, and retention of mental health and substance use disorder care providers who participate in Medicaid or CHIP.
- It must include strategies involving Medicaid and CHIP authorities, including Medicaid section 1115 waivers. The list is not limited to those strategies.
- States would not be required to follow the guidance.
What it means for you#
- Federal health officials: The HHS Secretary would have a duty to issue the guidance by the deadline.
- States: They would receive non-binding suggestions. The bill does not require them to change their Medicaid or CHIP programs.
- Providers and people seeking care: The bill does not directly change provider eligibility, coverage, benefits, or access to care. Any effect would depend on whether States act on the guidance.
- Current law: The bill refers to existing Medicaid and CHIP programs, but the underlying laws were not supplied, so their current rules and how the bill would interact with them could not be verified.
Money#
No publicly available information on the bill’s cost.
- The bill does not provide funding or specify staffing or other resources for preparing the guidance.
- It does not set out new payments, fees, or benefits for providers or patients.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not set out the content or method for developing the guidance, or require consultation, reporting, or follow-up.
- It does not define “rural and underserved areas” or say how the guidance should prioritize them.
- It does not say what resources HHS would use to produce the guidance.
- It is unclear how the suggestions would interact with existing Medicaid and CHIP rules; the underlying laws were not supplied.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to give States practical options for strengthening the workforce that serves Medicaid and CHIP participants.
- Including strategies involving waivers and other program authorities could help States consider different ways to support provider education, training, recruitment, and retention.
- A focus on rural and underserved areas directs the guidance toward places where the bill aims to improve workforce capacity.
Case against#
- The guidance would be non-mandatory, so States would not have to adopt its strategies.
- The bill does not provide funding or require specific workforce actions, so it does not ensure that provider numbers or care capacity will increase.
- It sets no requirements for the guidance’s content, development process, or follow-up, leaving important details to HHS.