Authorizes the commissioner of the office of mental health, and the office of addiction services and support to jointly establish a single set of licensing standards and requirements for the construction, operation, reporting and surveillance of integrated behavioral health services.
This bill creates a new framework for “comprehensive outpatient services centers” in New York, intended to integrate mental health care, addiction treatment, and physical health services in one outpatient setting. It defines comprehensive outpatient services broadly to include preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic, and rehabilitative care for mental illness and substance use disorders, along with primary care or other physical health services, and allows patients to seek services regardless of their primary diagnosis or complaint. The bill also requires the relevant state agencies—the Department of Health, the Office of Mental Health, and the Office of Addiction Services and Supports—to jointly establish a single set of licensing standards for these centers.
The legislation directs the agencies to set standards for application review, integrated treatment records, workforce qualifications, billing and reimbursement, physical plant requirements, incident and adverse event reporting, confidentiality, patient rights, consent, mandatory reporting, and other protections. It also bars the use of education-law exemptions that would otherwise allow unlicensed persons to provide services requiring professional licensure, and it specifies that these centers are not required to obtain separate licenses or operating certificates under certain existing mental health or addiction rules when they are authorized under the new framework. The bill further amends related statutes to clarify that comprehensive outpatient services centers are not limited in the volume of primary care services they may provide and are not required to obtain additional Department of Health or OMH/OASAS certificates solely because they are operating under this new integrated model.
In practical terms, the bill would change how state law treats integrated behavioral health providers by creating a distinct licensing category and coordinating oversight across multiple agencies. It affects the Social Services Law, Public Health Law, and Mental Hygiene Law, and it would likely impact clinics, hospitals, diagnostic and treatment centers, mental health clinics, addiction providers, and primary care providers that want to offer integrated outpatient services. The bill is set to take effect April 1, 2026, with immediate authority for agencies to adopt implementing regulations before that date.
The general sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable. It passed the Assembly Mental Health Committee unanimously and then passed the Assembly floor unanimously as well, indicating broad support and little visible opposition in the available record. The bill’s stated purpose and structure suggest it is aimed at improving coordination of care, access, and outcomes for people with overlapping behavioral health and physical health needs, especially populations at risk.
No specific committee debate is available, so the main points of contention must be inferred from the text itself. Potential concerns include the creation of a new licensing regime, the extent of agency discretion to set standards and restrict scope by regulation, confidentiality rules for adverse event reporting, and how the bill interacts with existing professional licensure and facility certification requirements. Another likely issue is whether integrated providers will face new compliance burdens or, conversely, benefit from streamlined oversight and reimbursement rules.
The bill would add a new section to the Social Services Law establishing comprehensive outpatient services centers and authorizing joint licensing standards by the Department of Health, OMH, and OASAS. It would also amend the Public Health Law and Mental Hygiene Law to ensure these centers are not forced into duplicative licensing or operating-certificate requirements under existing hospital, mental health, or addiction-service frameworks when they are authorized under the new law. The measure would therefore reshape state oversight of integrated outpatient behavioral health and primary care services, while preserving patient-rights, reporting, confidentiality, and professional-licensure protections.
The available voting history shows unanimous support in committee and on final passage in the Assembly, suggesting the bill was viewed positively and as a policy improvement rather than a controversial measure. The lack of recorded dissent or transcript debate indicates broad agreement around the goal of integrated care and streamlined regulation. Overall, the sentiment appears favorable and consensus-driven.
Because no committee transcript is available, there is no documented floor or committee dispute to attribute to specific legislators or stakeholders. The most plausible areas of contention are structural and regulatory: whether a new integrated licensing category should replace or supplement existing certificates, how much authority the agencies should have to define scope and standards, how billing and reimbursement will work, and whether the bill’s confidentiality and reporting provisions strike the right balance between patient privacy and oversight. Providers that already operate under existing article 28, 31, or 32 frameworks could be affected differently depending on how the new rules are implemented.