Concerning repealing medicaid reimbursement for therapy using equine movement, and, in connection therewith, reducing an appropriation.
Summary
HB26-1365 would repeal a Colorado statute that currently allows Medicaid reimbursement for therapy using equine movement, a treatment delivered by licensed physical therapists, occupational therapists, or certified speech-language pathologists. In practical terms, the bill removes this therapy from the list of Medicaid-covered services under state law.
The bill also makes a corresponding budget change by reducing the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing’s 2026-27 general fund appropriation by $181,514, with an assumed matching reduction in federal funds. The appropriation adjustment is tied to the repeal and would only take effect if the 2026-27 annual appropriations act becomes law.
Impact
The bill would amend Colorado’s Medicaid statutes by repealing section 25.5-5-332.2, eliminating state authorization for reimbursement of equine movement therapy under Medicaid. It would also reduce the department’s medical and long-term care services appropriation for Medicaid-eligible individuals, lowering state spending and anticipated federal matching funds by the same amount. The practical effect would be to remove coverage for this specific therapy for Medicaid recipients and to slightly reduce the program’s budget.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been treated as a budget-reduction measure rather than a broadly supported policy expansion, and it was ultimately postponed indefinitely in the House Appropriations Committee. The lack of recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials limits insight into detailed debate, but the committee action suggests the proposal did not advance. Overall, the available record indicates limited legislative momentum and no clear evidence of strong support at the committee stage.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely whether Medicaid should continue covering equine movement therapy, which is a specialized and relatively narrow service. Supporters of repeal would likely emphasize cost savings and the removal of a nonessential benefit, while opponents would likely argue that the therapy can provide meaningful clinical benefits for certain patients and should remain available to Medicaid enrollees. Because the bill was postponed indefinitely in Appropriations, the committee appears not to have reached consensus on whether the savings justified eliminating the benefit.