College Mental Health Bill Creates Interstate Telehealth Access, Bypassing State Licensing Rules

When students head off to college, especially out of state, one of the biggest headaches is figuring out how to keep up with their mental health care. The College Students Continuation of Mental Health Care Act of 2025 attempts to solve this problem by cutting through the red tape of state-by-state licensing for college-employed mental health providers.

The New Telehealth Fast Lane

This bill sets up a special interstate system for college mental health providers—think counselors, psychologists, or social workers employed by the university—to offer services via telehealth to their students, even when the student is physically in another state. The key benefit here is continuity of care. If a student from State A goes home to State B for summer break or a holiday, their campus counselor can keep seeing them remotely. This is huge because it removes the common barrier where a provider licensed in State A is technically breaking the law by treating someone in State B. The bill defines a “Covered Student” as anyone currently registered or who attended classes within the last three months, extending the safety net slightly past the academic calendar (SEC. 2).

Where the Rules Get Simplified (and Complicated)

Under this new system, the provider generally only needs to follow the rules of their “Primary State”—the state where the college is located. They don’t have to jump through the hoops of the student’s state licensing board. For example, a provider in Texas can treat a student vacationing in California using their Texas license and practice standards. This greatly streamlines operations for colleges trying to support a national student body.

However, the student’s state still has a partial veto. If the student’s state bans a specific mental health service or requires it to be delivered in a specific way, the provider has to comply with that stricter rule. This means the quality and type of care a student receives could still depend on where they are geographically, potentially leading to a patchwork of access. If a student is in a state with very strict regulations, they might lose access to a service their college provider offers back home (SEC. 2, Scope of Practice Rules).

The Fine Print on Safety and Oversight

To keep things above board, the bill requires providers to follow specific protocols before starting remote care. They must confirm the student’s identity, get verbal or written acknowledgment that the student knows they are receiving telehealth services, and, crucially, have a backup plan in case the technology fails mid-session (SEC. 2, What Providers Must Do First). This is a smart safety measure, ensuring that if a student is in crisis and the video cuts out, the provider has an immediate way to reach them.

While this bill is a clear win for students needing consistent care, it does raise questions about oversight. By allowing providers to practice primarily under their home state’s rules, the authority of the student’s state licensing board is effectively diminished. If the primary state has lax standards, a student in a state with historically strong consumer protections might receive care that doesn’t meet local quality expectations. It’s a trade-off: increased access against reduced local regulatory control. The bill also clarifies that any services delivered under this arrangement are covered by the provider’s malpractice insurance as if they were delivered in the primary state, which should ease concerns for providers worried about cross-state liability (SEC. 2, Malpractice Coverage).