Colorado 2022 Regular Session

Colorado Senate Bill SB106

Introduced
2/1/22  
Refer
2/1/22  
Report Pass
2/23/22  
Refer
2/23/22  
Engrossed
3/8/22  
Refer
3/8/22  
Report Pass
4/5/22  
Refer
4/5/22  
Report Pass
4/29/22  
Refer
4/29/22  
Enrolled
5/4/22  
Engrossed
5/16/22  
Engrossed
5/16/22  
Enrolled
5/16/22  

Caption

Conflict Of Interest In Public Behavioral Health

Impact

The inclusion of these regulations aims to enhance transparency and accountability within managed care entities (MCEs) operating under the state's behavioral health care system. By reducing potential conflicts of interest, SB106 anticipates fostering a more impartial and effective delivery of services to individuals requiring behavioral health care. This may influence existing practices surrounding funding and governance in these organizations, leading to a healthier regulatory environment that prioritizes public welfare.

Summary

Senate Bill 22-106 addresses the conflicts of interest present in regional organizations responsible for public behavioral health services in Colorado. The bill mandates specific conflict of interest policies for managed service organizations that have a significant ownership stake held by providers of behavioral health services. These policies include prohibitions against providers with ownership or board membership having control or decision-making authority over the establishment of provider networks. Furthermore, the bill compels quarterly reviews of funding allocation to ensure equitable consideration of all providers and to prevent any inappropriate preferential treatment based on ownership statuses.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB106 appears to be predominantly supportive, especially from advocates for mental health care reform who see the need to eliminate conflicts of interest that could compromise service delivery quality. Legislators argue that the bill is a crucial step towards ensuring that behavioral health services are equitably distributed and governed, while critics may express concerns regarding any potential administrative burdens the new policies might introduce. Nonetheless, the general consensus reflects a commitment to improve the integrity of public health services.

Contention

Notable points of contention include apprehensions regarding the feasibility of implementing such stringent conflict of interest policies, particularly questions about the administrative capacity of organizations to comply without excessive burdens. Some stakeholders may worry that these measures could inadvertently limit the participation of smaller providers in the service delivery system, thus affecting the overall accessibility of services for patients in need of behavioral health support.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

AZ HB2560

Sober living; behavioral health; licensure

WV HB2175

Relating to the regulation of behavioral health centers

WV HB5248

Relating to the regulation of behavioral health centers

AZ HB2346

Outpatient treatment centers; exemption

OR HB4130

Relating to the practice of health care; prescribing an effective date.

CT HB06731

An Act Concerning The Department Of Public Health's Recommendations Regarding Change In Ownership Of Health Care Facilities.

CA SB992

Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities.

AZ SB1655

Behavioral health entities; regulation