988 Fee Lobbying Irks State Legislators

It's not just congressional Democrats upset about wireless industry lobbying and other efforts to keep a lower lid on customer surcharges for mental-health services related to hotlines, we found. State legislators are also irked, they said in recent interviews. Federal lawmakers continue to be upset, they said.

Members of Congress rightly worry about wireless industry lobbying to reduce 988 fees, said state lawmakers behind the mental-health hotline bills. Colorado legislators from both parties defended fee caps that have drawn national attention in recent weeks. CTIA lobbying targets this year included legislative committees in California, Colorado, Nevada, Kansas and Washington state.

Three Democratic senators sounded the alarm earlier this month about apparent CTIA lobbying on states' implementation of the 988 suicide prevention hotline (see 2107150063). Under the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act, states' political subdivisions and Indian tribes can impose 988 fees for routing calls to that hotline and for “personnel and the provision of acute mental health, crisis outreach and stabilization services by directly responding to the 9-8-8 national suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline.”

CTIA declined to comment Friday, but in an April letter to California Assembly Health Committee members, Vice President-State Legislative Affairs Gerard Keegan said the organization is “concerned” California’s proposed 988 legislation would significantly expand the use of 988 fees beyond equipment, communications services, and direct costs for crisis hotline center personnel for 988 call taking and appropriate call routing. Funding for responses such as mobile crisis teams and outreach should come from general revenue, he said.

States

California and Washington state Democrats raised concerns. Mental-health advocates are also worried.

Congressional concerns “absolutely align with what I saw in Washington state during the process of the 988 bill,” said state Rep. Tina Orwall (D), sponsor of the state’s 2021 law (see 2104260061). There were weekly meetings with wireless companies and “incredible pressure to reduce the fees and to narrow what the fees could be used for,” she said. Orwall plans to write a letter with her Senate sponsor Manka Dhingra (D) to the state’s congressional delegation, she said. “It was very difficult to actually pass the bill with the fee ... at a reasonable level, and I’m seeing all these other states that aren’t moving this. How will they be ready?”

Industry opposition in California is beyond disappointing, said Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D) in a statement. “Not only have they undercut their very own position on the landmark federal legislation, they have put the integrity of this critical program at risk across the nation.” Bauer-Kahan said the federal law “was explicit in allowing for the funding mechanism” in her AB-988, which would cap monthly 988 fees at 80 cents a customer. The bill passed the Assembly in June and awaits Senate consideration.

Colorado legislators dismissed U.S. senators' concern about fee caps. “If they have problems with it, then they should have given us funding,” said Sen. Chris Kolker (D). Policymakers must be “good stewards of tax/fee dollars and ensure the real expense of operating a 988 call center and mental health standby providers is matched by the dollars generated in the fee attached to monthly cell phone and landline numbers,” emailed state Rep. Matt Soper (R).

Wireless industry lobbying was successful in some states in watering down 988 fees or nixing them entirely, said David Lloyd, senior policy adviser for mental health advocacy organization The Kennedy Forum. Calling that “very disappointing,” Lloyd said those response services are typically funded in a mix of ways, including Medicaid, with 988 fees “another critical funding source” for expansion. Lloyd expects an increased number of state legislatures will address 988 implementation next year, before the July 16 deadline for the three-digit hotline going live. Without fees, implementation “will be inherently limited,” he said.

Congress

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden of Oregon and his aides aren’t talking yet about next steps to follow on the criticisms he and two other Democratic senators leveled at CTIA earlier this month for lobbying efforts on states' implementation of the hotline. “We’ve been getting signals” that the wireless industry has been “trying to walk back” the scope of hotline services when it’s something meant to “help people at arguably the most vulnerable time in their lives,” Wyden told us last week. “I want big telecom companies to step up” and stop hindering states’ efforts here because “it’s so important to the community.”

Wyden “has yet to receive a response” from CTIA on his concerns, an aide told us. The official noted mental health advocacy groups Wyden has spoken to cited implementation hurdles in California, Kansas and Montana “that seek to reduce the size of the fees that can be assessed” for the hotline “and the scope of services to which the fees could apply, which would severely limit the ability of states to establish and maintain local crisis call centers and in-person mobile crisis response teams.”

The other Democrats who signed Wyden’s letter -- Senate Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon -- deferred to Wyden on next steps. Wyden’s letter was “compelling and so I signed onto it,” Murphy told us. “I just want to make sure” suicide hotline service is available everywhere in the U.S.

Senate Communications Subcommittee Chairman Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M., told us he’s going to “reach out to” Wyden about his hotline implementation concerns. “If there’s any concern about anyone stopping the deployment of hotlines to help save peoples’ lives” like the suicide hotline, “that is completely irresponsible,” Lujan said. “If anyone’s slowing this down, that needs to be corrected and people should be held responsible.”

CTIA listed “988 implementation” among the items it lobbied the federal government on during Q2. The Jewish Federations of North America, National Council for Behavioral Health, Paralyzed Veterans of America and The Trevor Project were among the other entities that lobbied on hotline issues. This is all per new disclosure forms.

Fee Caps

Washington state’s original bill had a phased-in fee starting at 30 cents monthly per line, increasing later to 50 cents, then 75 cents. The final law starts at 24 cents fee and later rises to 40 cents.

Those fees “allow us to expand the call center and to start to prepare, but I’m not sure that they’re going to be sufficient for really the kind of changes we’re going to need to support the next two or three years,” said Orwall: the state might still have to partly rely on 911 for rapid response.

Washington lawmakers refused to limit how fees could be used, instead referencing the congressional language, said Orwall: that might be one item national lawmakers should clarify. She disagreed with asking why Congress didn’t provide money because she said it’s not “one-time” but “sustainable funding” that’s needed. A monthly fee is “a pretty modest investment to actually have something that’s going to help everyone in our state.”

Kolker said some took issue with raising fees as Colorado developed a bipartisan 988 law, so legislators reduced the bill’s original 50 cents cap to 30 cents, and the state will initially charge 15 cents monthly. Colorado has much of the required infrastructure, “so we didn’t feel like we had to charge as much,” and the cap “can always be revisited,” the state senator said. “We worked across the board with many stakeholders,” including the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, 911 officials and phone, cable and wireless industries, Kolker said. The only outright opposition came from Charter Communications, a cable operator with prepaid wireless that objected to using surcharges for mobile crisis response teams, he said. “I’m sorry [but] you can’t just have a call center if you really want to implement this policy,” Kolker said. Charter didn't comment now.

“I never once saw the telecom industry arguing for less fees,” said Soper, one of the state law’s Republican co-sponsors. Industry “saw the fee as similar to 911” with charges to be passed on to customers, he said. Soper argued “the fee should be a floating range based on use and need," not exceeding "what we charge for 911, as the use for 911 will always be greater ... than suicide prevention and Mental health matters.” Colorado’s fee “isn’t even starting at the cap and even the 911 fee had a cap,” said Soper: It can always be raised later, but more fees on phone bills hurts people with low income.

Early Colorado talks between mental health and telecom interests resulted in a bill that got no big pushback aside from Charter, said Moe Keller, Mental Health Colorado vice president-public policy and strategic initiatives. She said the cabler pushed for that fee to be used just for call center expenses and not mobile crisis response services. Colorado has a crisis response system mobile unit, established in 2013 after the Aurora movie theater shooting, Keller said. Other states likely would need a higher surcharge than Colorado’s 15 cents, to pay for establishing such services, she said.

Including telecom interests at the beginning “is very wise,” said Keller. She said the talks lead to concessions in the bill such as fees being the same billing line-item as 911 fees, obviating the need to change billing practices.