The following summarizes feedback regarding the "Provider Qualification Requirements" section received from our members since the draft policy was released:

Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) and Data-Sharing Concerns

• Conflict of Interest: Concern that MOUs could be managed by organizations that also provide the same services, creating potential conflicts and inequity.
• Undefined Content and Boundaries: MOU requirements are vague with no clear guidance on content, responsible parties, or oversight.
• Privacy and Compliance Risks: Ambiguity around FERPA vs. HIPAA standards, parental consent, and data-sharing protocols could expose providers and schools to compliance violations.
• Role Confusion: The regulations require collaboration with schools but fail to define limits on provider responsibilities, leading to potential role overlap with school staff.

Licensing, Enrollment, and Accreditation Challenges

• Providers must secure DBHDS licensure, DMAS enrollment, and accreditation within 18 months, which is viewed as unrealistic, especially for small or rural agencies.
• Accreditation costs and timelines are prohibitive; some accrediting bodies require agencies to operate the service for 18 months before applying, creating a catch-22.
• Unclear licensure and specialty categories (still “to be determined”) prevent agencies from preparing effectively.
• Agencies already accredited (e.g., through CARF) are concerned about redundant or conflicting requirements.
• No clear transition process for providers who already hold DBHDS licenses or accreditations.

Service and Billing Clarifications

• Restorative Skills Training: Need clarity on why telehealth cannot be used when other skill-building activities can occur virtually.
• Psychotherapy: Unclear whether it is included within CPST or must be billed as a separate service.

Eligibility and Functional Criteria Issues

• The Functional Impairment Criteria section is confusing and contradictory, language around “two domains at level 2” vs. “three at level 3” needs simplification to ensure consistent interpretation.

System Readiness and Implementation Timing

• CPST is a new service model for both providers and accrediting organizations, meaning there is no established standard for review.
• The 18-month compliance timeline does not align with accreditation processes, training readiness, or operational startup realities.