Backgrounder
Senate Bill 400: Parity for Mental Health Care
Purpose: To eliminate discrimination in health coverage for mental illness.
What the bill does: Benefits for treatment of mental illness would be subject to the same duration limits, dollar limits, deductibles and coinsurance factors as are benefits far physical illness. It provides that the benefits for the necessary care and treatment of mental illness are no less favorable than benefits for physical illness.
Changes made in Senate:
- Removes chemical dependence from the bill.
- Adds a sunset of October 1, 2001, as with the Federal Kennedy-Kassabaum legislation.
- Exempts employers with fewer than five employees.
- Allows case management for mental illness treatment.
- Places a two percent cap on cost—an insurer/HMO can petition the Insurance Commissioner to be exempt from the provisions of S400.
What the bill doesn’t do: The bill does not prohibit insurers and HMOs from managing the care. In fact, the organizations supporting this bill encourage good case management such as is provided under the State Health Plan indemnity benefit, as long as the management is not used solely to deny medically necessary treatment and clients have access to treatment.
Why is the bill needed? Currently, insurers and HMOs do discriminate. Mental health care is subject to higher deductibles, co-payments and limits. Mental illness should not be treated differently than physical illnesses. The federal legislation provides parity only for annual and lifetime limits. That does not assure adequate care.
What about the cost? Currently, the State Employees Health Plan provides full parity for mental health treatment. Since parity was established in 1992 (including a single deductible for all care), mental health payments as a portion of total health payments have decreased from 6.4 percent to 2.2 percent for the fiscal year ending June 1997. That is a 47 percent reduction—not a rise in cost. Since 1992, hospital days paid by the plan for mental Illness have been reduced by 64 percent.
What about other states? Eighteen states have some degree of mental health parity. None of these states is reporting significant premium increases related to parity. Minnesota passed full parity effective August 1, 1995. The Minnesota Department of Commerce, the state agency that regulates indemnity insurance, estimated a cost of one percent of total premium dollars for mental health parity. Maryland reported a 0.2 percent decrease after implementing full parity, and Rhode Island has a 0.33 percent increase.
It’s the right thing to do: Mental illnesses are treatable. Treatment success rates are comparable to rates for other major physical illnesses. With parity, people’s ability to access early and appropriate treatment will reduce long-term costs.
Let’s Talk About Your Marketing Communications Goals and Challenges!
If you’re looking for help with writing, graphic design and marketing communications and you like the portfolio samples you see here, contact me to schedule a telephone call to explore the possibilities of a collaboration. Of course, there is no cost or obligation for the call.