Caregiver Background Checks
HB131 revises New Mexico’s Caregivers Criminal History Screening Act by moving oversight of caregiver background checks from the Department of Health to the Health Care Authority. The bill keeps the existing requirement that caregivers and hospital caregivers undergo nationwide criminal history screening before employment, and it authorizes the Health Care Authority to adopt rules governing fingerprint submission, fees, confidentiality, timelines, provider sanctions, and employment procedures while screening is pending.
The bill also expands the grounds for disqualification from caregiver employment. In addition to a list of specified felony convictions, it allows the Health Care Authority to determine that an applicant poses an “unreasonable risk” to care recipients based on the totality of the circumstances, including certain patterns of abuse- or exploitation-related convictions or pending charges for serious offenses such as abuse, human trafficking, sexual offenses, domestic violence, or child abuse. The bill requires notice to both the provider and the applicant, provides an administrative reconsideration process and judicial review, preserves confidentiality of criminal history records, and creates a registry of disqualified applicants. It also transfers related functions, records, and equipment to the Health Care Authority effective July 1, 2025.
HB131 amends Section 29-17-5 NMSA 1978 and related caregiver screening procedures, shifting administrative authority from the Department of Health to the Health Care Authority. It affects care providers, applicants, caregivers, and hospital caregivers by changing which agency receives fingerprints, issues disqualification determinations, and promulgates implementing rules. The bill also strengthens state oversight by adding a discretionary “unreasonable risk” standard, expanding the list of disqualifying offenses, and preserving enforcement tools such as administrative sanctions for noncompliance.
The bill appears to have broad legislative support. It passed the House 48-7 and the Senate 39-0, indicating strong bipartisan approval and little recorded opposition at final passage. The available record does not include committee debate, but the vote margins suggest the measure was generally viewed as a public-safety and administrative-reorganization bill rather than a controversial policy change.
The main points of potential contention are the expanded discretion given to the Health Care Authority and the broader disqualification standard. Supporters likely view these provisions as necessary to protect vulnerable care recipients and improve screening oversight, while critics could be concerned about agency discretion, due-process protections, and the effect on workforce access for caregivers with older or nonviolent convictions. The bill addresses some of those concerns by requiring notice, administrative reconsideration, judicial review, and a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard for finding unreasonable risk.