Maryland Medical Assistance Program – Use of Reimbursement Funds by Schools
Summary
HB689 would require elementary schools, secondary schools, and county school systems to direct reimbursement funds they receive for services provided to students enrolled in Medicaid or the Maryland Children’s Health Insurance Program toward specific staffing and workforce-development uses. The bill defines “reimbursement funds” as money paid to schools for school-based services delivered to eligible students under the Maryland Medical Assistance Program or MCHIP, and defines “provider” broadly to include school audiologists, school psychologists, school speech pathologists, and other health care practitioners serving students in school settings.
Under the bill, those funds must be used to create additional provider positions, support paid internships for students pursuing provider careers, and pay stipends intended to improve recruitment and retention. The bill also specifically allows stipends for providers working in low-performing schools, again aimed at addressing staffing shortages. 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.
Impact
HB689 would add a new section to the Education Article, Section 5-244, creating a statutory use restriction on certain Medicaid and CHIP reimbursement dollars received by schools and school systems. Instead of leaving those funds entirely to local discretion, the bill would require them to be spent on school-based health and related provider staffing, internships, and retention incentives. This would affect elementary and secondary schools, county school systems, and the Department of Education, which would need to issue implementing regulations.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be supportive of strengthening school-based health staffing and workforce pipelines. The bill is framed as a targeted effort to improve recruitment and retention of school health providers and to expand opportunities for future providers through paid internships. No formal opposition or recorded controversy is reflected in the available context.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the mandate itself: local schools and county systems would be required to dedicate reimbursement funds to specified uses rather than using them for other local priorities. Some stakeholders could view this as helpful workforce investment, while others may argue it reduces local flexibility or could complicate budgeting. Another possible issue is the breadth of the term “provider,” which includes multiple health-related school personnel and any other health care practitioner serving students, leaving implementation details to regulation by the Department.