![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 3 of 3. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Neal on February 23, 2009, at 3:26:33
New Law Signed ending mental illness discrimination.WASHINGTON More than one-third of all Americans will soon receive better insurance coverage for mental health treatments because of a new law that, for the first time, requires equal coverage of mental and physical illnesses.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Manuel Balce Ceneta/Associated PressRepresentative Patrick J. Kennedy speaking at a rally in March on Capitol Hill. Mr. Kennedy and Representative Jim Ramstad, third from left, led the fight in the House for mental health parity.
The requirement, included in the economic bailout bill that President Bush signed on Friday, is the result of 12 years of passionate advocacy by friends and relatives of people with mental illness and addiction disorders. They described the new law as a milestone in the quest for civil rights, an effort to end insurance discrimination and to reduce the stigma of mental illness.
Most employers and group health plans provide less coverage for mental health care than for the treatment of physical conditions like cancer, heart disease or broken bones. They will need to adjust their benefits to comply with the new law, which requires equivalence, or parity, in the coverage.
For decades, insurers have set higher co-payments and deductibles and stricter limits on treatment for addiction and mental illnesses.
By wiping away such restrictions, doctors said, the new law will make it easier for people to obtain treatment for a wide range of conditions, including depression, autism, schizophrenia, eating disorders and alcohol and drug abuse.
Frank B. McArdle, a health policy expert at Hewitt Associates, a benefits consulting firm, said the law would force sweeping changes in the workplace.
A large majority of health plans currently have limits on hospital inpatient days and outpatient visits for mental health treatments, but not for other treatments, Mr. McArdle said. They will have to change their plan design.
Federal officials said the law would improve coverage for 113 million people, including 82 million in employer-sponsored plans that are not subject to state regulation. The effective date, for most health plans, will be Jan. 1, 2010.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the new requirement will increase premiums by an average of about two-tenths of 1 percent. Businesses with 50 or fewer employees are exempt.
The goal of mental health parity once seemed politically unrealistic but gained widespread support for several reasons:
¶Researchers have found biological causes and effective treatments for numerous mental illnesses.
¶A number of companies now specialize in managing mental health benefits, making the costs to insurers and employers more affordable. The law allows these companies to continue managing benefits.
¶Employers have found that productivity tends to increase after workers are treated for mental illnesses and drug or alcohol dependence. Such treatments can reduce the number of lost work days.
¶The stigma of mental illness may have faded as people see members of the armed forces returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with serious mental problems.
¶Parity has proved workable when tried at the state level and in the health insurance program for federal employees, including members of Congress.
Dr. Steven E. Hyman, a former director of the National Institute of Mental Health, said it was impossible to justify insurance discrimination when an overwhelming body of scientific evidence showed that mental illnesses represent real diseases of the brain.
Posted by fayeroe on February 23, 2009, at 14:02:38
In reply to New Law End Mental Illness dicrimination in insure, posted by Neal on February 23, 2009, at 3:26:33
Posted by 10derHeart on February 23, 2009, at 16:05:18
In reply to New Law End Mental Illness dicrimination in insure, posted by Neal on February 23, 2009, at 3:26:33
Neal, thanks for bringing this up again. I think in late '08 we had some threads on Social and Meds about it, but this is even a better place.
Wish people still didn't have to wait another year for it to be law.....but I suppose 2009 with something passed in late 2008 would have been a large administrative burden on the companies/employers....Wouldn't it be nice if some of the health plans involved, in preparation, would just loosen up and bring their 2009 benefits in line with what they will be required to provide anyway in 2010....but of course that's me *daydreaming* I suppose...they'll perhaps want to save money while they can, at least most of them....
Here's a summary of the text of the bill (HR 1424) as it was finally passed by the Senate after being rolled into the 2008 Economic Stabilization Act (of which the famous/infamous TARP is a prominent part):
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1424&tab=summary
(search on the word "parity" and you'll go right to that section)
It's an excellent website for tracking bills through Congress.
Someone once said 'good things come to those who wait," but sheesh, people desperately needing the expanded and simply *fair* availability ($$-wise and #s of visits) of this MEDICAL care sure have been waiting a da** long time!! And there will still be those not covered, and some exemptions on certain grounds of cost.....but it's something, at least.....
Maybe the shift in attiude it may represent is more - or at least just as - important as the nuts and bolts of the bill, at least for the future. We can hope and pray.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.