New Hampshire House Bill HB1648

New Hampshire 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 12/27/21
• Refer: 12/27/21
• Report DNP: 2/3/22

Caption

Requiring public colleges and universities to implement peer support groups and develop policies for students with mental health conditions.

Impact

The bill is expected to generate a significant fiscal impact on the University System of New Hampshire (USNH) and the Community College System of New Hampshire (CCSNH), with estimated initial operational expenses totaling approximately $264,000 a year for USNH alone. Moreover, CCSNH anticipates even higher costs, nearing $866,940, due to the need for additional staffing and external contracts for mental health services. This shift aims to fulfill the growing demand for mental health resources as identified in recent studies, which suggest that a sizable percentage of college students are experiencing mental health conditions.

Summary

House Bill 1648 mandates public colleges and universities in New Hampshire to implement peer support groups and develop comprehensive policies to address the mental health needs of students. Recognizing that mental health issues are increasingly prevalent within the college demographic, the bill reflects a legislative effort to enhance mental health support on campuses. The proposed measures include conducting mental health awareness training, establishing online screening tools, and creating partnerships with local mental health agencies to improve service accessibility for students.

Sentiment

General sentiment surrounding HB 1648 is supportive of its intention to prioritize students’ mental health. However, there are concerns regarding the fiscal implications and the feasibility of rolling out the required support infrastructure effectively. Advocates appreciate the push for enhanced mental health awareness and services, while some detractors point to the challenges of funding and the effective implementation of the proposed peer support programs, expressing that mere legislative action may not suffice without adequate resources and training.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the cost associated with implementing the bill's requirements and whether public institutions will be able to meet the demand for mental health services adequately. Some legislators and stakeholders have raised concerns that increasing operational costs might lead to budget reallocations or cutbacks in other essential services, questioning the overall sustainability of the new initiatives proposed by HB 1648. The ongoing debate highlights the delicate balance between enhancing mental health provisions and managing fiscal responsibility within educational institutions.