On March 5, 2008, the House of Representatives passed the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007. This bill would significantly expand the scope of the Mental Health Parity Act approved by Congress in 1996.
The original law prohibits lifetime and annual limits on mental health treatment. The new bill would require that plans that cover mental health provide the same level of benefits for both mental health and substance abuse treatment as are provided for medical and surgical treatment. As with the original law, the new bill only applies to employers with more than 50 employees.
The Senate passed a similar bill several months ago and now a conference committee must work out the differences between the two bills.
The House bill is sponsored by Jim Ramstad (R-MN) and Patrick Kennedy (D-RI). Ramstad is Patrick Kennedy’s Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor. Patrick Kennedy’s father, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) is one of the driving forces behind the Senate version of the bill.
One of the biggest differences between the two bills is that the House bill requires coverage of any condition listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association. The DSM includes such things as caffeine addiction and jet lag. Many insurers have objected to this provision claiming it would drive up costs unnecessarily.
April 3, 2008 at 6:03 pm |
The bill should cover all mental disorders. The objective is parity. Insurers seem to always use the cost argument. Everything costs. Perhaps discussion about value might bring more clarity. How much does it cost to not treat disorders? This addition is long overdue.
April 19, 2008 at 6:54 pm |
As a United States Citizen and a person with disabilities, I can not believe that in the dawn of the 21st century we as a country continue to allow insurance companies to dictate the financial, physical and mental wellbeing of its citizens based upon which health maladies are a profit to them. When businesses are allowed to discriminate against those with diagnosed disabilities and force them into the Social Security and Medicare systems, we have failed as a nation to take care of our own citizens who are in distress.
May 24, 2008 at 12:25 am |
Dear Anonymous,
Every system can be improved, and good people are working on improving our health care system in the U.S. In all fairness, we haven’t failed as a nation unless citizens in distress have nowhere to go for healthcare. But as you yourself just noted, they have an alternative: the Social Security and Medicare systems. Those aren’t ideal. Neither is the employer-based system. I’d still take the whole package over Mexico or Canada.