A BILL for an Act to provide an appropriation to the department of health and human services for regional acute psychiatric treatment and residential supportive housing services.
SB 2096 would appropriate $16 million from the state general fund to the North Dakota Department of Health and Human Services for the 2025-2027 biennium to support regional acute psychiatric treatment and residential supportive housing services. The money could be used for facility and operations grants, including behavioral health grants intended to improve facilities and operations for inpatient behavioral health care.
To qualify for a grant, a recipient would have to increase the number of inpatient behavioral health beds, as determined by the department, and the beds would need to be used for acute psychiatric treatment or residential supportive housing. The bill also requires grant recipients to operate the facility for at least 10 years under contract with the state. In addition, facility locations would need to be selected with an eye toward reducing referrals to the state hospital, and the department would be directed to distribute grants so that each quadrant of the state has equal access to these services.
The bill would create a new one-time general fund appropriation and direct the Department of Health and Human Services to administer grants for behavioral health infrastructure and operations. It would not broadly rewrite existing statutes, but it would impose program conditions on grant recipients, including bed expansion, long-term operation requirements, and geographic distribution standards. The practical effect would be to expand regional psychiatric capacity and supportive housing options while potentially reducing pressure on the state hospital system.
Available context shows little recorded debate, since there are no committee transcripts or roll-call votes included. The bill ultimately failed on March 28, 2025, which indicates it did not secure final legislative approval. Based on the bill’s purpose, it appears aimed at addressing a recognized behavioral health capacity need, but the absence of recorded discussion makes it difficult to identify a clear public consensus or opposition from the provided materials.
The main likely points of contention are the size of the appropriation, the requirement that grant recipients add inpatient behavioral health beds, and the mandate that facilities remain in operation for at least 10 years. Legislators could also have differed over whether the state should fund new regional facilities versus other approaches to psychiatric care, and over the bill’s requirement to distribute services evenly across all quadrants of the state. Because no committee testimony or votes are provided, the specific supporters and opponents are not identified in the record here.