New York Assembly Bill A00279

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/29/25
• Report Pass: 2/25/25
• Refer: 2/25/25
• Refer: 1/7/26
• Refer: 1/30/26

Caption

Requires parity in the mental and physical health treatment of the residents of New York state; provides that both mental and physical health "will be matters of public concern and provision therefor shall be made by the state and by such of its subdivisions".

Summary

A00279 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would elevate mental health to the same constitutional footing as physical health in New York State. It would revise Article 17 to state that the protection and promotion of both physical and mental health are matters of public concern, and that the state and its subdivisions must provide for them. The bill also changes the existing language on mental health care and treatment from permissive language (“may”) to mandatory language (“shall”), making the provision of mental health care and treatment by state and local authorities a constitutional obligation rather than a discretionary one. The measure further updates the constitutional language governing oversight of institutions that care for people with mental disorders or defects, replacing gendered references to the head of the department’s staff with more neutral wording. Because it is a constitutional amendment, the proposal would not change statutes immediately; instead, if approved by the Legislature and then ratified by voters, it would require future state and local policy and funding decisions to reflect a constitutional duty to support mental health services alongside physical health services.

Impact

If adopted, the amendment would alter Article 17 of the New York Constitution by making mental health explicitly co-equal with physical health and by imposing a mandatory constitutional duty on state and local governments to provide for mental health care and treatment. This would likely affect how agencies, local governments, and courts interpret obligations related to mental health services, funding, and program design, while also reinforcing oversight of public and private institutions serving people with mental disorders. As a constitutional proposal, it would not itself amend the Mental Hygiene Law or other statutes directly, but it would create a higher-level legal mandate that could influence future legislation, budgeting, and administrative action.

Sentiment

The available legislative history suggests strong support for the proposal at the committee level. The Assembly Mental Health Committee voted 13-0 to favorably refer the bill to the Judiciary Committee, indicating unanimous committee approval among those voting. The bill’s caption and text reflect a broad policy goal of parity between mental and physical health, and there is no recorded opposition in the provided materials.

Contention

The main substantive issue in the bill is the shift from discretionary to mandatory constitutional language, which could raise questions about the scope of state and local obligations, implementation costs, and how courts might enforce the new duty. Another possible point of discussion is the practical effect of constitutionalizing mental health parity rather than addressing it through ordinary statute. No explicit objections are included in the provided transcript materials, but any contention would likely center on fiscal impact, administrative flexibility, and the breadth of the constitutional commitment.