HB1063 makes a series of changes to Colorado law governing behavioral health crises, emergency mental health holds, and transportation of people for evaluation or treatment. The bill expands Medicaid reimbursement so that not only opioid treatment programs, but also licensed providers authorized to prescribe, dispense, compound, or administer medication-assisted treatment, can be reimbursed for providing MAT in a jail setting. It also broadens the definition and use of “secure transportation” for people experiencing a behavioral health crisis, allowing more non-law-enforcement transport options and shifting licensing authority for secure transportation providers from counties to the Department of Public Health and Environment beginning January 1, 2027.
The bill revises procedures for emergency mental health holds, court-ordered evaluations, short-term certifications, long-term certifications, and outpatient certification. It adds behavioral health crisis response teams, private ambulance providers, and private EMS providers as possible secure transport personnel; requires peace officers, when feasible, to tell a person they are not under arrest and have not committed a crime; and gives detained persons a right not to be transported by a certified peace officer if another secure transportation option is available. It also requires petitions and court orders to include more information about a respondent’s history, including known assault or weapons possession and prior mental health holds or certifications, and it allows facilities to disclose the disposition of a detained person to law enforcement.
In practical terms, the bill would affect the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, the Department of Public Health and Environment, counties, law enforcement agencies, secure transportation providers, behavioral health crisis teams, ambulance and EMS providers, jails, and facilities that handle involuntary behavioral health treatment. It changes who may transport individuals, who licenses those transport providers, and what information must be documented and shared during involuntary treatment proceedings. The bill also appears to be a transition measure, with the county-to-state licensing shift delayed until 2027.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history is strongly supportive and largely noncontroversial. The bill advanced out of House Health & Human Services, House Appropriations, and both chambers with wide margins, including unanimous or near-unanimous votes in several steps and a Senate committee recommendation for the consent calendar. That pattern suggests broad bipartisan agreement with the bill’s goals of expanding treatment access and reducing reliance on law enforcement for behavioral health transports.
The main points of contention appear to center on public safety, transport authority, and implementation details rather than the bill’s overall purpose. The bill requires more disclosure about assault and weapons history in petitions and court orders, which indicates concern about risk assessment for respondents and transport personnel. At the same time, it creates a preference for non-police transport when available, which may reflect an effort to reduce criminalization of behavioral health crises while still preserving law enforcement involvement when no alternative exists. The shift in licensing authority from counties to the state department may also be a structural change of interest to local governments and providers.
HB1063 would amend multiple sections of Colorado’s health and behavioral health statutes, including provisions in Titles 25 and 27. It expands Medicaid reimbursement for jail-based medication-assisted treatment, revises the definition and regulation of secure transportation, transfers secure transportation licensing authority from counties to the Department of Public Health and Environment beginning January 1, 2027, and adds new procedural and rights protections in emergency mental health hold and civil commitment proceedings. The bill also creates new documentation and notice requirements for courts, facilities, and transport providers, and it gives detained individuals an express right to avoid transport by a certified peace officer when an alternative secure transportation option is available.
The bill appears to have received broadly favorable treatment throughout the legislative process. Committee and floor votes were overwhelmingly positive in both chambers, including unanimous votes at several stages and a Senate committee recommendation to place the bill on the consent calendar. That voting pattern suggests the measure was viewed as a practical behavioral health and public safety bill with limited partisan opposition.
The most notable tensions in the bill involve balancing patient rights, public safety, and the role of law enforcement in behavioral health transports. Supporters appear to favor expanding non-law-enforcement transport options and reducing the use of police for people in crisis, while the bill still preserves law enforcement involvement when alternatives are unavailable. Another area of concern is the added requirement to document assault and weapons history and prior mental health holds or certifications, which reflects a safety-focused approach and could raise privacy or due-process questions. The transfer of licensing authority from counties to the state may also be a point of administrative concern for local governments and existing secure transportation providers.