Posted on 12/28/2006 6:55:01 AM PST by presidio9
After years of trying, advocates think they have a good chance of getting Congress to pass legislation next year that would require equal health insurance coverage for mental and physical illnesses, if their policies include both.
ADVERTISEMENT
The legislation, named for the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, a Minnesota Democrat who championed the cause, has strong support in Congress but has run into GOP roadblocks. In the last congressional session, 231 House members — more than half of the chamber — signed on as co-sponsors. The GOP leadership, which in the past had expressed concern that the proposal would drive up health insurance premiums, wouldn't bring it up for a vote.
In 2003, Senate Democrats tried to win passage of the bill as a tribute to Wellstone, who died in a plane crash the previous year. Republicans blocked an attempt to pass it by unanimous consent.
"I'm very optimistic that 2007 will finally be the year that our health care system recognizes that the brain is, in fact, a part of the body," said Rep. Patrick Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), a Rhode Island Democrat who sponsored the bill in the last Congress. "We've had majority support for this legislation six years in a row, and now we have a chance to bring it to the floor and pass it."
Kennedy has worked to erase the stigma of depression and other mental health problems. He has been candid about his own mental health, including being diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and he has won praise for speaking publicly about suffering from depression since his teenage years, taking antidepressant medication and regularly seeing a psychiatrist. He has also acknowledged being in recovery for alcoholism and substance abuse.
Kennedy's lead co-sponsor, Minnesota Republican Jim Ramstad, said a "silver lining" to the Democrats winning both houses of Congress is the increased chances of passing the bill, known as mental health parity.
"The Republican leadership would not give us a vote," said Ramstad, a recovering alcoholic who has pushed for improved treatment for those with alcohol and drug dependency.
Ramstad said that incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has told him the bill will come up for a vote on the House floor, which Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly confirmed.
"We need to deal as a nation with America's No. 1 health problem," Ramstad said. "It's not only the right thing to do, but the cost-effective thing do."
Prospects have also improved in the Senate. Incoming Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is a big backer of mental health parity, as is Kennedy's father, Massachusetts Democrat Edward M. Kennedy, who will chair the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee next year.
Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., who worked with Wellstone on the legislation, called the bill one of his top priorities in the next Congress.
A 1996 law already prohibits health plans that offer mental health coverage from setting lower annual and lifetime spending limits for mental treatments than for physical ailments. But backers want to see that expanded to things like co-payments, deductibles and limits on doctor visits.
Mohit M. Ghose, a spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, said that the trade group hopes to tackle the country's challenge of providing coverage to the uninsured in the next Congress.
"To accomplish this goal, we believe that consumers and employers must have the ability to choose the type of health care coverage they can afford and that most suits their needs," he said. "We hope that any discussion of mental health and other health care legislation will occur in this context next year."
J.P. Fielder, a spokesman for the National Association of Manufacturers, said his group doesn't support "additional mandates to health care coverage that will drive up these costs to employers." He declined to say whether he considered this bill to be a mandate, saying the group was still reviewing issues that will come up in the next Congress.
Andrew Sperling, a lobbyist for the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, said the bill was not a mandate because it doesn't require insurance plans to provide mental health coverage.
"We don't want to get in the trap of making this a mandate," he said. "We believe this is a coverage condition."
He added: "We believe the brain is an organ like any other, and coverage should be equitable. Treatment is effective."
David L. Shern, president and CEO of Mental Health America (formerly the National Mental Health Association), said cost should not be a concern. He pointed to a study this year in the New England Journal of Medicine, which found that the government's decision to provide parity to federal employees in their health insurance plans did not drive up the cost of mental health care.
"I'm hoping we have nailed all of the concerns," Shern said. "It's the right thing to do, we have the data that says it's affordable, so our hope is this will be the year to set this benchmark nationally."
Well, certainly we can agree that everyone who attended the Wellstone funeral should have their head examined.
So what will companies do? They'll drop their mental health coverage altogether.
And those perfect conservatives who decided to sit out the last election, in part because they thought Republicans spent too much, are in for some nasty surprises when they see how much Democrats intend to spend. LOL
"So what will companies do? They'll drop their mental health coverage altogether." You got that right. These squish-heads have no clue when it comes to unintended consequences.
Prepare for your health insurance rates to go way up.
Soon to follow, required mental health evaluations, new prescribed psychotic drugs, special "schools" for diagnosed children, holding cells for anyone registered R, internments, gulags....
EEEEEEEEE!!!
/s or not?
I have family members with legitimate mental illness. I think that it is BS that they are not covered. They pay the same premiums as the rest of us, and are otherwise generally healthy productive individuals who would not be able to function effectively without proper medical care. The course of such treatments actually benefits society as they would otherwise become a burden.
BS they aren't covered? Some policies don't cover mental health care, that's just a simple fact.
This isn't an article debating whether or not such care should be covered but whether this Wellstone bill will do what the Democrats want it to do.
Here's the problem -- unlike physical conditions, some folks will never believe they are cured mentally. Here's a great example -- I have a friend who suffers from depression and/or perhaps a milder form of bi-polar disorder. She has held down a very steady job and enjoyed a very active social life for the last 30 years. Meanwhile, she has been going to therapy once a week for the last EIGHT years. She's been on and off meds, been diagnosed multiple times, and she's convinced that she isn't quite right. She's not sure she's "happy" and she likes being able to vent for an hour a week. Are these the kind of people that we want to provide equal coverage to? Because they will take advantage of it, trust me, and it will drive up rates for everyone or companies will drop mental benefits altogether. It's one thing to go to counseling after a traumatic event like the death of a loved one, but there are many folks out there who are in therapy just to be in therapy.
Please review what I wrote about "unintended consequences."
Try again. None do. Either we get rid of all regulations on employment descrimination (which I would personally favor) or we level the playing field. Accomadating one group of disabled individuals but not another is unjust.
All the advantages and privileges of his upbringing and he's depressed? That's the Kennedys!
Nope. Not getting anything from one cryptic sentence. Tell me more.
-"To accomplish this goal, we believe that consumers and employers must have the ability to choose..."-
...the insurance the gubmint says you have to pay for. Just freakin' brilliant. NOT.
Which one is that? Typically even when they do offer some coverage, the co-pays are substantially higher.
My first thought too. Ok, second thought. First was of BJ and before the coffee.
BC/BS of CT. We live in the south but my husband is a retiree from CT and he has that lifetime insurance as his retirement package.
We don't pay any co-pays, but I realize that is unusual.
Sorry this was too dense for you. If this legislation passes, it will give employers who provide health insurance with an INCENTIVE TO DROP all mental health coverage whatsoever. Those currently covered, however adequate the coverage, will lose this coverage altogether. I am relatively sure that is not what the sponsors of this legislation have in mind, hence, the consequence of passing this legislation would not be what they inteneded.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.