HB 76 revises Montana’s laws governing the Board of Behavioral Health and expands the chapter to expressly include family peer support alongside existing behavioral health peer support. The bill updates definitions and licensing language throughout the chapter to reflect both licensure and certification, and it creates a new certification pathway for family peer support specialists. Under the bill, a family peer support specialist is a parent, guardian, or caregiver of a child under 21 with significant physical, developmental, or behavioral health needs who completes an approved training program, including an ethics component.
The bill also modifies the rules for behavioral health peer support specialists. It requires applicants to have a diagnosis from a mental health professional, have received treatment, be in recovery as defined by board rule, and complete an approved program. The board must publish approved programs and ensure training content is flexible, affordable, and inclusive of faith-based, cultural, and educational programs. The bill further amends candidate and exemption provisions, including clarifying that clergy and other religious officials may perform their religious duties without being treated as board licensees, so long as they do not hold themselves out as licensed by the board.
In practical terms, HB 76 broadens the state’s regulated behavioral health workforce by adding a certification framework for family peer support and by clarifying how peer support and related behavioral health services are recognized under Title 37, chapter 39, MCA. It affects the Board of Behavioral Health’s authority over qualifications, approved training, candidate status, and exemptions, and it may expand access to peer-based support services for families and individuals in recovery. The bill also updates statutory language to align with the new certification structure and to distinguish certification from licensure where appropriate.
The overall sentiment appears generally favorable, as reflected by repeated passage through both chambers and adoption of the governor’s proposed amendments. However, the vote history shows some opposition at several stages, suggesting that while the bill had broad support, it was not unanimous. The most notable points of contention appear to have involved the scope of regulation, the addition of a new family peer support credential, and the inclusion of faith-based training options and a religious-official exemption, which may have drawn differing views about professional standards, oversight, and the role of religion in behavioral health training and practice.
HB 76 amends sections 37-39-101, 37-39-102, 37-39-303, 37-39-307, and 37-39-312 of the Montana Code Annotated. It expands the statutory framework for behavioral health regulation to include family peer support, creates certification requirements for family peer support specialists, and revises peer support and candidate provisions to use certification language where applicable. It also preserves and clarifies exemptions for clergy and other religious officials, and directs the Board of Behavioral Health to approve and publicize training programs that are flexible, affordable, and inclusive.
The bill appears to have been viewed positively overall, with clear majority support in the House and Senate and final adoption of the governor’s proposed amendments. The vote margins indicate meaningful but limited opposition at several points, suggesting general agreement on the need to update behavioral health regulation while some members remained concerned about the details of certification, training standards, or exemptions. The absence of committee transcript discussion limits insight into the specific arguments, but the legislative history shows the bill ultimately advanced successfully.
The main areas of potential contention were the expansion of the board’s regulatory scheme to include family peer support, the certification standards for peer support specialists, and the requirement that approved training be inclusive of faith-based programs. The explicit exemption for clergy and other ordained religious officials may also have been debated as a boundary between professional behavioral health practice and religious counseling. The recorded votes suggest these issues generated some resistance, though not enough to prevent passage.