I’m trying to figure out why mental health care has not risen to the same level of importance in insurers minds as physical health care? Are the mental afflictions of certain people generally considered less of a medical condition than a broken leg, pulled tendon or kidney stone? Is the pain and suffering not sufficient enough for insurers to not offer the same level of coverage?
Apparently so, because this week according to nationalunderwriter.com “Members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee voted 18-3 today to pass a bill that could require insurers to offer the same level of coverage for mental health care that they offer for physical health care.” The “Mental Health
Parity Act” specifically “would apply to both treatment of conditions such as depression and of substance abuse problems such as alcoholism” and put “no limits on days or treatment visits, and no exorbitant co-payments or deductibles, according to Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
The President of the American Benefits Council, an employer group, said, “It earned our support because it imposes no mandates on the services or conditions a plan must cover, permits plans to contract with separate networks of mental health providers to deliver covered services, allows plans to employ a wide range of medical management practices to help ensure that only medically necessary care is covered and preempts state laws that ‘differ from’ the federal requirements.”
Do you agree with this proposed legislation? Should mental health care be on par with physical health care?
Comment Preview