Candidates for Representative in Congress - Certificate of Candidacy Filing Deadline for the 2026 Election - Alteration
HB0689 would require elementary schools, secondary schools, and county school systems that receive reimbursement funds under the Maryland Medical Assistance Program or the Maryland Children’s Health Insurance Program for services provided in a school setting to use those funds for specified purposes. The bill defines “provider” broadly to include school audiologists, school psychologists, school speech pathologists, and other health care practitioners who serve students in schools.
Under the bill, reimbursement funds must be used to create additional provider positions, support paid internships for students pursuing these professions, and provide stipends aimed at improving recruitment and retention. The bill also specifically authorizes stipends for providers working in low-performing schools, again with the goal of addressing staffing shortages and retention challenges. The Maryland Department of Education would be required to adopt regulations to implement the new requirements, and the act would take effect October 1, 2025.
HB0689 would add a new section to the Education Article requiring schools and county school systems to dedicate certain Medicaid and CHIP reimbursement revenue to staffing-related uses rather than general school purposes. It would affect elementary and secondary schools that bill for school-based health services, as well as the Department of Education, which would need to issue implementing regulations. The bill is intended to strengthen the pipeline and retention of school-based health and related service providers by tying reimbursement dollars to positions, internships, and stipends.
Based on the bill text and the limited context provided, the measure appears generally supportive of school-based health services and workforce development. Its stated purpose is to address provider recruitment and retention, especially in low-performing schools, which suggests a policy focus on improving access to student services rather than reducing funding. No committee testimony, votes, or recorded opposition were provided, so there is no clear evidence of formal support or resistance in the available materials.
The main potential point of contention is the bill’s restriction on how schools may use reimbursement funds, since it directs those dollars to specific staffing and training purposes instead of allowing local discretion. Schools or county systems that rely on reimbursement revenue for broader operational needs could view the mandate as limiting flexibility. Another possible issue is the administrative burden of tracking and complying with the new spending requirements and regulations, though no specific objections are documented in the provided record.