Introduction
The damage to intervention systems on college campuses has caused a drastic decline in students’ mental health, exponentially heightening the demand for improved mental health services provided by universities. With increased pressure on college administrations, telehealth appointments—providing faster and wider access to care—have become more widely used within universities. While digital mental health services have decreased anxiety and depression in students, the gaps in continuous care caused by holidays and semester breaks impede this.
Thus, the College Students Continuation of Mental Health Care Act of 2025 was introduced to address such issues by requiring virtual mental health coverage for all students enrolled in participating institutions. The Act focuses on two core issues: geographic barriers and insurance. By allowing students to access treatment remotely and regardless of insurance status, this legislation guarantees the permanent and continuous care needed to prevent and de-escalate students’ mental health struggles. Despite the plan’s potential benefits, issues arise when it comes to students’ varying preferences for care and technological inaccessibility.
Arguments in Favor of the Act
Pro-telehealth arguments often highlight the success of online mental health services in boosting wellness in college students. A meta-analysis confirmed that digital mental health interventions have been linked to decreased severity in symptoms of anxiety and depression among college students. By removing financial and logistical impediments, the Act becomes more suitable than in-person methods for mental health care for students.
Advocates also praise the Act’s ability to heighten accessibility for student mental health services. Through telehealth, universities will eliminate the geographic barriers faced by students in rural areas, students with scheduling conflicts, and students without reliable transportation. Many students have to commute long distances to reach most in-person mental health providers, making telehealth support especially valuable—they are now able to access treatment wherever they are located.
Importantly, the Act allows students to continue receiving treatment throughout breaks, minimizing gaps in care. This is essential for college students, most of whom are at increased risk of worsening symptoms when treatment is interrupted during winter or summer breaks. By allowing providers to offer interstate telemental health services, supporters assert that the Act will close the current gap in university mental health systems.
Critiques of the Act
A primary concern is that virtual appointments may not be as high-quality or effective as traditional mental health care. Opponents often highlight how many studies show that participants prefer face-to-face services over digital ones. In a national survey, a large majority of students interviewed favored speaking to someone in person about their mental health concerns, claiming discomfort toward online methods for a multitude of reasons. For one, students who lack reliable technology or private spaces may struggle to engage fully in telehealth sessions. Many have shared concerns about privacy and confidentiality due to living with roommates or family.
Additionally, many argue that the inconsistent infrastructure across higher education poses a significant challenge. Not all colleges have the resources to successfully administer and support widespread telehealth services—especially those that are underfunded or understaffed. Smaller institutions and those with limited resources often experience a limited ability to offer virtual mental health services at no cost to all students. The implementation of digital mental health systems requires continued investment in human and financial resources, which may not be a possibility or priority for all institutions.
Finally, critics point out that mental health services often require a more complex level of intervention than standard screen-to-screen services can provide, arguing that telehealth cannot simply replicate and replace the benefits of in-person methods such as counseling, group therapy, and on-site crisis intervention. Campus counselors exist to aid students with concerns and critical issues, including suicidal ideation and trauma. Many believe that these services require intense and continuous support that goes beyond the scope of many telehealth designs.
Conclusion
Ultimately, advocates support that the College Students Continuation of Mental Health Care Act of 2025 is a beneficial step toward addressing the mental healthcare access crisis in higher education, praising its convenience and effectiveness as solutions to core issues. On the other hand, critics say its implementation needs to take into account the large preference for in-person treatment, as well as how the bill creates room for technological and confidentiality problems. Future policy work must focus on improving the varying infrastructures on college campuses while exploring other options that serve as a middle ground between in-person and digital methods.
Ensuring Care on Campus: Inside the College Student Continuation of Mental Health Care Act was originally published by the Alliance for Civic Engagement and is republished with permission.
