Gov. Kelly Ayotte is not letting it go. Hours after the House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee voted 14-4 on May 6 to bury Senate Bill 498 in interim study, the governor stood in front of reporters and called the vote “appalling,” accused Anthem of stalling, and vowed that the fight to make private insurers cover wraparound mental health services for New Hampshire children was, in her words, far from over. As InDepthNH reported, Ayotte’s response to the committee vote was the most visible escalation of a years-long fight that has now landed squarely in the Republican governor’s lap. SB 498 is the bill Ayotte has put her name on, and the committee’s decision to send it to interim study is exactly the kind of slow-walked outcome that, in past sessions, has let the issue die quietly.
This time the governor has refused to let it. Her decision to publicly target Anthem by name, less than 24 hours after a Republican-led House panel sided with the insurance industry, is a meaningful shift in tone for an administration that has otherwise tried to keep its public conflicts with the legislature low-key.
What SB 498 Actually Does
SB 498 is narrow on its face but consequential in practice. The bill establishes the New Hampshire Children’s Behavioral Health Association, a quasi-governmental body authorized to collect assessments from insurance carriers, stop-loss carriers, and third-party administrators of fully insured and self-funded health plans. The funds collected would be deposited into a dedicated account administered by the state insurance commissioner and used to pay care management entities that deliver wraparound behavioral health services to privately insured children.
The assessment base would include covered lives in the state employee health plan and pooled risk-management programs created under RSA 5-b. In other words, the cost of the program would be spread across the entire commercial insurance market in New Hampshire, not absorbed by general fund tax dollars.
The Insurance Department has told lawmakers that the dollar amount of the assessment is “indeterminable” because it depends on how many children actually use the FAST Forward program in any given year. The same fiscal note pegs the administrative cost of running the new association at roughly $175,000 a year, with growth tied to inflation.
Sen. Regina Birdsell, R-Hampstead, is the prime sponsor. The bill cleared the Senate on a wide bipartisan margin earlier this session.
The Coverage Gap That Drives The Bill
The reason this fight keeps coming back is the structural gap in how New Hampshire pays for serious children’s behavioral health care. Children covered by Medicaid have access to FAST Forward, the state’s wraparound program for kids ages 5 to 21 with significant mental, emotional, or behavioral health needs. The program is intensive: it pairs care coordination with peer support, in-home crisis planning, and family-centered services designed to keep a child living at home rather than being placed in residential treatment.
Children covered by private insurance, by and large, do not get the same access. Carriers reimburse for traditional outpatient therapy and inpatient hospitalization, but they have not typically reimbursed for the wraparound model. The result is a two-tier system: a Medicaid child can get the kind of coordinated care that prevents an inpatient stay, and a privately insured child often cannot.
The state has been picking up the tab anyway. Officials have estimated that New Hampshire is spending roughly $2 million a year out of general fund money to cover privately insured children who would otherwise be entitled to FAST Forward services. That is the gap SB 498 is designed to close, by shifting the cost from the state’s general fund to the insurance carriers whose policies already exclude it. According to estimates cited by Ayotte’s office, the bill would affect coverage for roughly 160,000 children, about 10 percent of the state’s child population, with the majority of affected policies sold by Anthem.
Why Ayotte Took The Gloves Off
The governor’s press conference came less than two hours after the committee vote. The tone was sharper than New Hampshire is used to from Ayotte. “It’s unbelievable to me that they think it is more important to support the insurance companies than it is to support the children of this state when it comes to a critical issue like mental health,” she said, according to InDepthNH’s account of the briefing. “I was incredibly flabbergasted and disappointed by the House vote on this and I believe that we should be covering mental health for children.”
She then put Anthem on notice by name. “Insurers like Anthem keep claiming that they are negotiating in good faith but clearly they are stalling because they don’t want to cover mental health coverage for children. It’s wrong.”
For New Hampshire’s largest commercial insurer, that kind of public callout from the governor’s office is not nothing. Ayotte made clear she sees the issue as a coverage question, not a tax question, and that framing matters because it cuts off the standard insurance industry talking point that any new mandate is an indirect tax on premium-paying customers. “This is not a tax issue, it is a coverage issue,” she said.
The governor also disclosed that DJ Bettencourt, the state insurance commissioner, has been working behind the scenes to broker an agreement with the carriers and that the carriers have refused to come to the table on terms acceptable to the state. That is a meaningful tell. It suggests the administration tried to avoid a public fight, did not get what it wanted, and is now willing to use the bully pulpit to apply pressure ahead of the full House vote.
The Industry’s Response
Anthem’s spokesperson said the company was disappointed in the governor’s comments and took particular issue with the proposed assessment-collecting board the bill would establish. The carrier’s argument, in essence, is that a new quasi-public body with authority to set fees on the commercial market amounts to a regulatory mechanism with no clear cost ceiling, and that the appropriate place to address coverage gaps is in private negotiations with the Insurance Department.
A faction of conservative activists has sided with the carriers, characterizing the assessment as a hidden tax. That argument has played reasonably well in House Commerce, which voted 14-4 to send the bill to interim study, the same procedural maneuver that has killed comparable legislation in past sessions. As we reported in our coverage of how anti-vaccine bills similarly petered out in committee, interim study in Concord is generally where bills go to die quietly.
Ayotte’s bet appears to be that the politics of telling parents of privately insured children that they cannot get the same wraparound services as Medicaid families is bad enough to flip enough House Republicans to override the committee’s recommendation when SB 498 reaches the floor.
What Happens Next
Procedurally, the committee’s interim study recommendation is just that, a recommendation. The full House can reject it and bring SB 498 up for a substantive vote. That is the outcome Ayotte is now publicly campaigning for. A House floor vote against the committee’s recommendation would be a sharp rebuke of House leadership but is not without precedent on bills with strong gubernatorial support.
If the House follows the committee, the bill is dead for the year and the underlying coverage gap remains. The state will continue to spend roughly $2 million a year backstopping privately insured children, the FAST Forward program will continue to operate as a Medicaid-only entitlement, and the structural mismatch between Medicaid and commercial insurance for serious pediatric behavioral health will persist into the next biennium.
If the House passes SB 498, the bill returns to the governor’s desk and Ayotte is on record that she will sign it. That would set up a new regulatory framework over the summer and fall, with the Children’s Behavioral Health Association ramping up assessments and contracts in the run-up to the next plan year. It would also set up a near-certain legal challenge from one or more carriers contesting the assessment authority.
The Broader Pattern
Ayotte has spent the first half of her term trying to position herself as a problem-solver willing to break with both ends of her own party when she sees an issue she can move. The wraparound fight fits that pattern. So does her continued willingness to brush back the legislature when committee votes do not go her way. The mental health bill is the highest-profile example so far, but it is part of a broader pattern of executive engagement on health policy that includes her recent moves on the child advocate’s office at the Sununu Youth Services Center and her sustained public defense of the GO-NORTH rural health initiative against Medicaid cuts.
For New Hampshire families with privately insured children navigating a serious mental health diagnosis, the policy stakes are concrete. A child whose insurance does not cover wraparound services is significantly more likely to end up in a higher-cost, lower-quality setting, including out-of-state residential placement. That is the outcome the program was designed to prevent, and it is the outcome the coverage gap continues to produce.
What To Watch In The Next Two Weeks
Three things will determine whether SB 498 lives or dies. First, how quickly the House calendars the bill for a floor vote, and whether leadership tries to bury the vote at the end of a long calendar day where attendance and attention are thin. Second, whether Anthem and the other commercial carriers respond to Ayotte’s public callout by softening their negotiating position with Insurance Commissioner Bettencourt, which would give moderates in the House a face-saving reason to vote the committee recommendation down. Third, whether any of the suburban Republican representatives whose districts contain meaningful numbers of privately insured families with school-age kids decide that voting with the insurance industry on a mental health coverage bill is a vote they want to defend in 2026.
The session ends in late June. The window for Ayotte to land this bill is short. She has made clear she does not intend to spend it being polite about it.
FAQ
For related coverage, see our reporting on New Hampshire Moves to Ban High-Potency Kratom Extracts as Poison Center Call….
For related coverage, see our reporting on New Law Requires New Hampshire Needle-Exchange Programs to Report Return Rate….
