Summary#

HB 26-1365, Repeal Medicaid Reimbursement for Equine Therapy, would amend Colorado law by repealing the statute that the bill summary says authorizes Medicaid reimbursement for therapy using equine movement from certain licensed providers. Its stated purpose is to end that authorization and reduce a 2026–27 appropriation. The bill failed, so it did not make these changes.

• The repeal would remove this specific reimbursement authorization for therapy provided by a licensed physical therapist, licensed occupational therapist, or certified speech-language pathologist.
• The bill would reduce the state general fund appropriation to the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing by $181,514 for 2026–27, if the state’s annual budget includes the relevant appropriation.
• The bill assumes federal funds received for Medicaid medical and long-term care services would also decrease by $181,514.
• The appropriation reduction would not be required if the relevant appropriation were less than $181,514 or were not included in the annual budget.

What it means for you#

• Medicaid members: The bill would remove this specific legal basis for Medicaid reimbursement. It does not say whether other Medicaid rules might cover any of these services.
• Providers: The listed licensed providers would lose this specific reimbursement authorization. The bill does not ban equine therapy or address payment outside this authorization.
• Taxpayers: The bill provides for a lower state appropriation and assumes federal funds would also decrease. It does not set out a separate tax or fee.
• General public: The bill would not create a new office, service, application process, or penalty.

Money#

The bill sets a $181,514 reduction to the state general fund appropriation for 2026–27, with an assumed $181,514 decrease in federal funds.

• The reduction applies only if the annual 2026–27 budget includes the relevant appropriation, and it is not required if that appropriation is too small or absent.
• No information is provided about how many Medicaid members or providers use the reimbursement, or about other costs or savings.

What is unclear#

• The parent statute is not included, so the bill’s description of current law could not be checked against the statute’s full text.
• It is unclear whether other Medicaid provisions could still cover equine therapy or related services.
• No publicly available information is provided on which services or members currently receive this reimbursement, or how many would be affected.
• The bill does not explain how the $181,514 state and federal funding figures were calculated.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the bill is that ending this reimbursement authorization would reduce the amount of public funding budgeted for it.
• The bill pairs the state appropriation reduction with an assumption that federal funding for Medicaid services would also decrease.
• Removing this specific authorization would make it clear that the state no longer provides reimbursement under this provision.

Case against#

• One concern is that Medicaid members who rely on this reimbursement could lose access to a way of paying for the therapy.
• The bill does not explain whether another Medicaid coverage route would remain, so the practical effect on members and providers is uncertain.
• The bill provides no information on how many people use the reimbursement or what service needs it addresses, making the impact difficult to assess.