Comments on: Mental Health Parity Bill Passes

By: Autism Vox 2008 in Review: August-December

Autism Vox 2008 in Review: August-December — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 09:06:28 +0000

[...] More to the point than “debates” about vaccines and autism was the passage of the mental health parity bill. [...]

By: A Note About Insurance, Anorexia, and “Biologically Based” Disorders

A Note About Insurance, Anorexia, and “Biologically Based” Disorders — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 03:05:54 +0000

[...] In many states (such as Virginia), families of autistic children have been seeking legislation to provide for insurance coverage for treatment (usually ABA therapy) for their children. A recent decision involving insurance coverage for eating disorders in New Jersey might be of interest: As reported in today’s Star-Ledger, Horison—the state’s largest health insurer—has agreed to cover claims stemming from eating disorders. Some 500 patients will receive $1.2 million when their previously denied claims are reprocessed; the decision settled a class action lawsuit brought by parents of children with anorexia. In a statement, Horizon spokesman Tom Rubino said the company “believes the settlement is in the best interest of all the parties involved and in line with the direction of federal parity for mental health.” [...]

By: Regan

Regan — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:12:25 +0000

Hi,
It was the triumvirate of Dominici, Paulstone and Kennedy who shepherded this bill along for 12 years, along with many advocacy organizations. Dominici has a degenerative condition and is retiring, Paulstone died in 2002, and Kennedy is also in a rather grave medical situation. I believe that these gentlemen are glad of the bill’s passage, although not in the most ideal circumstances–that’s politics. If it gives the coverage intended, for me, that works.

A more politically minded friend wrote me this AM. Her interpretation is that if a state already mandates autism coverage under mental health, this law has positive effect by removing caps and extending coverage to the self-insured, under the conditions stated. If not, it’s probably no change.

Probably the most accurate and applicable interpretation will be from your state’s insurance division.

By: Kristina Chew, PhD

Kristina Chew, PhD — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:44:59 +0000

While certainly important, the legislation fills, indeed, like an afterthought and buried away. But we’ll have to make it that’s not how it stays.

By: Read The Paul Wellstone-Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:30:27 +0000

[...] to Kristina at Autism Vox and one of her incredibly helpful readers, I can now point you in the direction of the text of the [...]

By: Alicia, Mental Health Notes

Alicia, Mental Health Notes — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:15:30 +0000

I agree, Another Voice. This bill should have been able to stand on its own. I believe lawmakers and mental health advocates have been trying to get it to do just that for about six years. It really says something about our country, government, the influence of health insurance companies, and the power of stigma itself that it took the passing of the bailout bill to make the passing of this mental health legislation finally happen.

By: Regan

Regan — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 05:06:14 +0000

I have not seen the word autism appear in it at all. I don’t know how that will play out, or perhaps I have missed the section on autism.

I looked too and didn’t see it–hence the question whether anyone knows the specific clause or conditions of the law that might be applicable.

I think at one point the bill would have covered all disorders listed in the DSM; that was scaled back in order to make it palatable for passage.

By: Another Voice

Another Voice — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 04:56:58 +0000

This bill should have been able to stand on it’s own. It is a shame that this was attached to the bailout bill along with all of the other millions of dollars in “pork”. Both presidential candidates have sworn to stop this type of unethical ear marking and attaching unrelated bills to other primary legislation. Unfortunately, they both lacked the courage to stand up and say no.

I have gone through the text of the bill; I have not seen the word autism appear in it at all. I don’t know how that will play out, or perhaps I have missed the section on autism.

I don’t know why it was handled in such a devious fashion since it will not cost the taxpayers any money. The entire cost will be covered by the working people who have mental health benefits as part of their health insurance and are employed by a company with fifty or more employees.

By: Regan

Regan — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 03:23:46 +0000

From my reading and some syntheses from the news:

The law doesn’t require health insurers to cover mental health care. But if they do, they’ll have to treat psychological and addictive disorders just as they do other medical conditions.

Insurers will no longer be able to limit the number of visits or charge higher deductibles and co-payments for mental health and substance abuse services.

The law applies to health plans covering more than 50 employees.

While many states already have mental health parity laws, often these do not apply to employers that fund their own insurance plans, including many large companies. Employees of those firms will be protected under the new national legislation.

The law is projected to be effective for most health plans as of January 1, 2010.

According to “Health Insurance Mandates in the States, 2008″, excluding HMOs, PPOs or self-funded large group policies
Mandated mental Health-General in 39 states is 1-3% increase/policy
Mandated mental Health Parity in 47 states is 5-10% increase/policy
(with caveats on their calculations as noted in the text.) This is just to give a rough idea of what existing costs might already be.
Don’t quote me, but I am guessing that the Congressional Budget Office estimate is in addition to these pre-existing costs.

If there is someone of a more actuarial bent who has exact numbers or more accurate information on impact to policies, I cede to him/her.

By: Alicia, Mental Health Notes

Alicia, Mental Health Notes — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:56:43 +0000

Thanks for the links, peeps!

@ Owl – I didn’t know that, and it poses a very interesting question: How many employers are going to continue offering mental health coverage in their group coverage packages?

Is two-tenths of one percent considered a lot in terms of increased premiums? (Really, I’m asking – I don’t know.)