Michigan’s behavioral health system remains technically compliant, but retroactive funding shifts, workforce strain, and structural conflicts are quietly destabilizing the provider network that protects access and public safety. That is why updating and strengthening Michigan’s behavioral health is so important. Pull Up Your Chair & Let’s Start the Conversation.

SUD Providers to Loose Thousands in Retroactive Decision

Last week, Detroit Wayne Integrated Health Network issued updated billing guidance interpreting H0018 as a bundled residential rate and applying that interpretation retroactively to October 1, 2025, triggering denials and potential recoupments for services already delivered (See DWIHN 2/17/26 Memo, Updated Billing Guidance for SUD Residential Services (H0018)). For SUD providers operating 24/7 residential programs, this is not a technical billing clarification. It is a destabilizing financial event in a part of the system responsible for stabilizing people in crisis, preventing relapse, reducing overdose risk, and easing pressure on emergency rooms and law enforcement.

Network adequacy is where this becomes a public safety issue. Federal Medicaid rules require the state to ensure timely access to care. When retroactive recoupments and rate cuts erode provider stability. It remains unclear how recovered funds will be reinvested to preserve residential capacity. Financial risk management cannot come at the expense of access to treatment or the stability of the safety net communities rely on every day.

A Structural Option for Michigan Behavioral Health: Managed Care With Clear Safeguards

Michigan has authority to reorganize its behavioral health system. The Court of Claims decision last month confirmed that the state may consolidate PIHP regions and issue a new RFP. That authority exists. What remains unclear is whether, or how, it will be used.

If the state considers structural changes, one option to consider is a specialty behavioral health managed care model designed around clear safeguards and conflict-free governance. This would not be a new layer of bureaucracy, it would be a structure built to stabilize the network and reinforce access.

In developing a stronger system of care, the state should remove the conflicts of interest inherent in todays’ system. Under a new system, the managed care entity would not operate direct clinical services that compete with contracted providers. Its role would be financing, contracting, quality oversight, and accountability, not service delivery. This addresses one of the persistent tensions in the current system: when the entity that controls the funding and certifications also becomes the competitor.

Second, uniform participation standards. Providers across regions would operate under consistent expectations for documentation, access timeframes, discharge planning, crisis coordination, and care transitions. This reduces regional variability and strengthens network adequacy in measurable ways.

Third, transparent rate-setting and review mechanisms. Retroactive reinterpretations and abrupt policy shifts destabilize care capacity. A defined rate review process, clear notice requirements, and prospective policy implementation standards would protect both fiscal oversight and provider stability.

Fourth, shared data and performance reporting. Access to care, crisis diversion rates, follow-up after hospitalization, residential utilization, engagement in treatment, and step-down continuity should be tracked in a standardized format statewide. Data transparency strengthens oversight without expanding bureaucracy.

Fifth, defined accountability channels. A formal dispute resolution process and structured escalation pathway allow concerns to be addressed before they become access failures.

Michigan’s Medicaid framework already accommodates managed care structures. The question is not whether the state has authority to reorganize. It does. The question is whether any future structure will include safeguards that prevent conflicts of interest, protect network adequacy, and stabilize service capacity across SUD and mental health.

The PIHP/CMHSP special interests have acknowledged the current systems needs to change, or more directly “improvements are needed”. Concerns have included administrative complexity, uneven regional practices, workforce strain, and the need for clearer accountability. There is broad recognition that the current structure no longer meets the needs to Michiganders. The disagreement is not over whether reform is necessary. It is over how it should be structured and what safeguards must be in place to protect access and the integrity of the safety net.

As the state considers its next steps, whether consolidation, procurement, or maintaining the current structure, the focus should remain on one outcome: preserving access and protecting the integrity of the safety net.

The Governor’s FY27 budget proposes maintaining the current number of CCBHC demonstration sites the same level it is today. In the FY26 budget there were no additional funds for expansion. The legislature will soon take testimony and develop their own proposal and look to pass a budget by June 1, 2026. So there is still room for changes and challenges.

Structural Options for Michigan Behavioral Health

Network Adequacy Exists on Paper. The Margin for Error Is Shrinking.

Michigan may meet the federal requirements for Medicaid network adequacy across its behavioral health system, but it could be at risk if the PIHPs continue to take on more services from providers. Because services are delivered through specialty prepaid health plans (PIHPs), the state must establish and enforce standards under 42 CFR § 438.68 to ensure beneficiaries have timely access to covered services. That obligation spans crisis response, mobile crisis, targeted case management, outpatient care, inpatient and residential treatment. On paper, the framework is intact. Contracts are in place (all but three or four PIHPs with pending litigation). Services are certified, yet certification is up to the PIHPs. Reporting mechanisms exist (but a lot of that data is not available to providers). So from a compliance standpoint, Michigan appears to have network adequacy standards.

When PIHPs take services in-house, crisis teams, mobile crisis, TCM, they do not eliminate the adequacy requirement; they internalize the operational risk. And when those same PIHPs recruit clinicians away from independent providers by offering higher wages funded through capitation reserves or internal restructuring, they increase labor costs across the ecosystem. Providers must either match those wages, reduce services, or lose staff. In a workforce-constrained system, that dynamic can quietly shrink access. The network may remain technically compliant, but operationally strained.

This is where Michigan is walking a fine line. The state can meet quantitative adequacy benchmarks while still weakening the broader provider ecosystem that makes those benchmarks sustainable. Network adequacy is measured in access, not in ownership structure. If internal expansion by PIHPs destabilizes independent capacity, the system risks creating a more centralized but more fragile network. Adequacy does not fail all at once. It erodes overtime, through workforce compression, slower crisis response, and reduced residential availability. That is why strengthening the structure of behavioral health is so important. The original redesign recognized the need to a more fair accountable and equitable system of care. And so too is updating the Mental Health Code. Fair competition is critical to maintaining a strong provider network.

The Michigan Department of Treasury today announced that nearly $100 million is being distributed among 302 local entities and tribes as part of the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act.

Over the next few days, 108 cities, 36 villages, 80 townships, 74 counties and 4 tribes will receive payments from the Marihuana Regulation Fund. For the State of Michigan's 2024fiscal year, this means each eligible municipality, county and tribe will receive more than $58,200 for every licensed retail store and microbusiness located within its jurisdiction.

"Starting this week, my team will begin to distribute adult-use marijuana payments to Michigan’s local units of government and tribal partners," State Treasurer Rachael Eubanks said. "The dollars received from the adult-use marijuana taxes and fees go toward schools, roads and back into Michigan’s neighborhoods. Local entities and tribes can spend these dollars however they deem fit for their needs."

As a part of recent changes in state law, over $931,000 will be distributed among four federally recognized tribes in Michigan for the first time. For the 2024 state fiscal year, there was more than $331 million available for distribution from the Marihuana Regulation Fund. Revenue from the state’s 10% adult-use marihuana excise tax and other fees go into the fund.

State law outlines how much is distributed to local entities, tribes, schools, roads and bridges. Aside from the nearly $100 million in disbursements to municipalities, counties and tribes, more than $116 million was sent to the School Aid Fund for K-12 education and another $116 million to the Michigan Transportation Fund.

“Municipalities, counties, and tribes certainly benefit from their local cannabis businesses in many ways, including good-paying jobs, community involvement, and increased revenues for important priorities in their budget,” said Cannabis Regulatory Agency (CRA) Executive Director Brian Hanna. "This portion of the excise tax revenue makes a direct impact in the communities where our licensees work and live.”

For more information about adult-use marijuana tax distributions, including a breakdown of how much local entities and tribes received , go to Michigan.gov/RevenueSharing. To learn more about Michigan's adult-use marijuana industry, go to Michigan.gov/cra. Source: Michigan.gov.

The OC (Oakland County)

Rural Health

Expansions.

Investigations + Inquiries + Data

Campaign 2026

State of the States.

What are the Governor’s Saying in their State of the State - Part II

SUD Resources

Events