College Students Continuation of Mental Health Care Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Flood, Mike [R-NE-1]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 15, 2025
Bottom line
This bill creates a federal framework to enable college mental health providers to offer telehealth services to students in other states, addressing a significant barrier to mental healthcare access for college students.
What it actually does
This bill establishes limited interstate licensing reciprocity, allowing college mental health providers to furnish telehealth services to students across state lines. It sets specific requirements for service initiation and clarifies the scope of practice, ensuring that providers' existing malpractice insurance covers these cross-state services. The aim is to ensure continuity of mental health care for college students regardless of their physical location.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill addresses a critical gap in mental healthcare access for college students, especially those attending out-of-state institutions or who travel during breaks. It ensures continuity of care, reduces administrative burdens for providers, and leverages telehealth technology to meet student needs, ultimately supporting student well-being and academic success.
Opponents contend
Opponents might raise concerns about potential erosion of state-level licensing authority, difficulties in oversight and accountability for providers operating across state lines, and the risk of varying standards of care. They could also argue that existing interstate compacts are a more appropriate and state-driven mechanism for addressing these issues.
The bill is concise and can be read quickly, making it accessible for informed evaluation.
Section 2(a)
Limited Interstate Licensing Reciprocity for College Mental Health Providers
This provision allows college mental health providers to furnish mental health services via telehealth to students located in a different state, overriding conflicting Federal or State laws, unless the provider is explicitly barred from practicing in that state. This means a provider licensed in the college's state can treat a student in another state, significantly expanding access to care for students who are not physically on campus.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this directly addresses a major barrier to mental healthcare for college students, ensuring continuity of care regardless of a student's physical location, which is crucial for student well-being and academic success.
Critics contend
Critics might express concern that this provision could undermine state regulatory authority over healthcare professionals, potentially leading to a patchwork of oversight or making it harder for states to ensure quality of care within their borders.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for student access to mental health care with state authority over professional licensing and regulatory standards.
Section 2(b)
Telehealth Service Initiation and Scope of Practice Requirements
This section outlines specific steps providers must take before and during telehealth service delivery. These include verifying student identity, obtaining acknowledgment of telehealth use, securing alternative contact methods, and, for new patients, confirming a treatment relationship or using real-time communication. It also clarifies that providers must adhere to their primary state's scope of practice, but cannot provide services prohibited by the student's state.
Section 2(c)
Malpractice Insurance Portability
This provision mandates that medical malpractice insurance coverage must treat services furnished under this reciprocity as if they were provided in the provider's primary state (where the institution of higher education is located). This ensures that providers' existing insurance policies remain valid when treating out-of-state students via telehealth, removing a significant legal and financial hurdle.
Section 2(d)
Congressional Consent for Interstate Telehealth Compacts
This section grants explicit Congressional consent for two or more states to enter into agreements or compacts that would allow college mental health providers to furnish telehealth services to covered students across those states. These compacts must not conflict with the provisions of this Act, providing an additional pathway for states to collaborate.
The definition of 'covered student' includes not only individuals currently registered for courses but also those who attended courses at the institution at any point during the 3-month period ending on the date the provider seeks to furnish services.
Section 2(e)(2)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms precisely. It's not intentionally evasive but could be overlooked due to its placement in a technical section.
Case for: Proponents would argue this extension ensures continuity of care for students who might be between semesters, recently graduated, or temporarily withdrawn, preventing abrupt disruptions in mental health support at a potentially vulnerable time.
Case against: Critics might argue that extending care beyond currently enrolled students could blur the lines of institutional responsibility and potentially strain college mental health resources, or that it creates an open-ended commitment beyond the immediate student-institution relationship.
Estimated impact: Expands the eligible population for telehealth services by college providers to include a segment of former or temporarily absent students, potentially increasing the caseload for providers and continuity of care for these individuals.