Senate Tables House Bill to Split Up the State’s Public Health Department
The house bill would have created a new Department of Health Services for mental health services, substance abuse treatment, developmental disabilities and veterans’ long-term care
By Zoë Buhrmaster
A house bill died this week that would have divided Montana’s Department of Public Health and Human Services (DHHS) into two separate agencies, placing mental health services, substance abuse treatment, developmental disabilities and veterans’ long-term care under the roof of a new Department of Health Services.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. John Fitzpatrick, R-Anaconda, said House Bill 851 was meant to address concerns around DPHHS’ use of funds to resolve staffing issues and support the struggling State Hospital in Warm Springs. He cited the multi-million dollar external consulting firm the department hired in 2022, with a persistent backlog of patients waiting for treatment at the State Hospital in Warm Springs.
By separating the two agencies, Fitzpatrick said his measure would streamline the system for the isolated services and result in increased accountability.
“We’ve been its enabler,” said Fitzpatrick, referencing funds the Legislature has allocated to DPHHS.
The bill sailed through the House on an 82-15 vote on April 8 with support from both sides of the aisle. The 15 votes against the bill included local lawmakers Rep. Amy Regier, R-Kalispell, Rep. Lukas Schubert, R-Kalispell, and Rep. Tracy Sharp, R-Polson.
Local representatives did not respond to request for comment in time for the Beacon’s publication deadline.
During the Senate’s public health committee meeting on Monday, Chairman Dennis Lenz, R-Billings, drew members’ attention to the bill’s length —127 sections spanning 140 pages — and said HB 851 still had not been printed in its entirety due to size.
“Just to give you perspective,” Lenz said.
Despite Fitzpatrick’s assurance that the primary point was the name change to the Department of Health Services, several opponents, including Paula Stannard, the DPHHS’ chief legal counsel took issue with the details. For example, Stannard said federal Medicaid law that requires each state to elect a single agency to oversee the Medicaid program and receive funding.
Several people also testified about their own personal difficulties navigating the DPHHS as it is, and that “the single point of entry is crucial.” Other opponents noted that it would create additional hoops for those using services in both departments and cause disruption for DPHHS related bills and funding.
“Don’t rein in a horse while it’s jumping,” said a representative for the Behavioral Health Alliance of Montana.
The committee hearing drew two proponents and 13 opponents, many of whom worked for or had contracts with DPHHS.
The two proponents, a representative from the Montana Board of Veteran Affairs and a field consultant with employees at the state hospital, reiterated the sponsor’s suggestion that it would benefit patients and staff to have an agency focused solely on health care.
Matt Kuntz, executive director of the Montana chapter of the nonprofit National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), spoke in opposition to the bill, despite having worked with the sponsor on an amendment. Kuntz expressed his gratitude to the sponsor for drawing attention to the challenges facing DPHHS, but said he ultimately could not support the bill.
“There’s a lot of anger on both sides of this, but we don’t believe there should be any friction about trying to balance between economies of scale and individual focus,” Kuntz said.
One of the items on the bill included relocating the headquarters of Health Services to Warm Springs, which Rep. Bill Mercer, R-Billings, questioned during the bill’s second reading on the House floor. Noting Fitzpatrick’s frustration with the agencies’ lack of communication, Mercer suggested taking a careful look at its framework before codifying its severance.
“I’m just not convinced that if you vote ‘yes’ on this bill, and we break this agency into pieces, you’re not going to possibly know how it’s going to affect the agency and who it serves,” Mercer said, suggesting a study bill.
The committee unanimously tabled the bill, 14-0, on April 14.