Connecting Students with Mental Health Services Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Krishnamoorthi, Raja [D-IL-8]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 26, 2025
Bottom line
The bill creates a federal grant program to expand student mental and behavioral health services through telehealth, prioritizing underserved schools and areas.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a grant program, administered by the Secretary of Education in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to support mental and behavioral health services for elementary and secondary school students. Grants are specifically aimed at enabling telehealth programs, particularly for students in rural areas or those lacking access to care. Funds can be used for equipment, space, personnel, and administration of these telehealth services.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill addresses a critical and growing need for mental and behavioral health support among students, especially in underserved communities where access to traditional services is limited. They contend that leveraging telehealth can bridge geographical and resource gaps, providing timely and effective care while ensuring student privacy.
Opponents contend
Critics might raise concerns about the adequacy of the authorized funding to make a significant national impact, suggesting it may only scratch the surface of the problem. Some may also question the effectiveness of telehealth for all mental health needs, particularly for younger students or those requiring more intensive, in-person interventions, or potential challenges with digital equity.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick and informed review.
Section 2(a)
Establishment of Grant Program
This section authorizes the Secretary of Education, working with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to create a grant program. The purpose of these grants is to help elementary and secondary schools provide mental and behavioral health support to their students, with a particular focus on those in rural areas or who currently lack access to such services.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly addresses the documented crisis in youth mental health by creating a dedicated funding stream to expand access to care where it's most needed.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that while well-intentioned, the scope of the program and the authorized funding may be too limited to create widespread, systemic change across all underserved areas.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for targeted intervention with the challenge of broad national coverage, potentially leading to a limited number of schools benefiting significantly.
Section 2(b)
Authorized Use of Grant Funds
This section specifies how the grant money can be spent. Eligible entities can use funds to buy or upgrade equipment and technology for telehealth programs, ensure there's enough physical space and staff to run these programs in schools, and hire new staff or provide extra pay to existing staff to manage the telehealth services.
Section 2(d)
Grant Priority Areas
When awarding grants, the Secretary of Education must give preference to eligible entities that serve specific types of schools. These include high-poverty elementary and secondary schools, rural elementary and secondary schools, or schools located in areas designated as health professional shortage areas under the Public Health Service Act. This ensures the grants target communities with the greatest need.
The definition of 'community health care provider' explicitly excludes any provider that does not accept payment under a State plan (or waiver of such plan) under title XIX of the Social Security Act (Medicaid).
Section 2(h)(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms, but it has a significant policy implication.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures that participating community health care providers are accessible to low-income students and families who rely on Medicaid, aligning the program with existing public health infrastructure.
Case against: Critics might argue that this exclusion could limit the pool of potential providers, especially in very rural areas where providers might not universally accept Medicaid, potentially hindering the program's reach.
Estimated impact: This provision ensures that the grant program's benefits are directly available to Medicaid-eligible students, potentially impacting millions of low-income students.
Funds made available under this section shall be used to supplement and not supplant other Federal, State, and local funds provided for activities funded under this section.
Section 2(f)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to prevent federal funds from simply replacing existing funding sources, ensuring new investment.
Case for: Proponents argue this clause is essential to ensure that federal funds genuinely expand services rather than allowing states or localities to reduce their own spending on mental health, thereby maximizing the program's impact.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against 'supplement, not supplant' clauses, as they are a common mechanism to ensure federal funding adds to, rather than replaces, existing efforts.
Estimated impact: This clause ensures that the authorized $20 million over four years represents a net increase in funding for student mental health services, rather than merely shifting existing financial burdens.