Showing posts with label parity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parity. Show all posts

Thursday, January 03, 2013

2007 Connecticut AG Report Critical of MH Access for Kids



The 2007 Connecticut Attorney General report on access to mental health care for children [PDF] was quite critical of the role that managed care had on shrinking access to mental health services for children and adolescents. Among the conclusions were:
The results of this survey, both the data collected and the written remarks of child and adolescent psychiatrists, show that countless children and adolescents are receiving inadequate psychiatric treatment, or no treatment at all. Although some patients may be adequately served by psychiatric care focused on the use of medication, a significant proportion of children and adolescents may need treatment that is more intensive, and more expensive, than therapy restricted to the use of drugs. Loss of access to this type of care, what psychiatrists call “relationship-based psychiatric care,” has been happening out of public sight.   
Using low reimbursement rates and bureaucratic hurdles to discourage the delivery of relationship-based care, managed care companies appear to be forcing many Connecticut child and adolescent psychiatrists out of managed care, making it increasingly difficult for many middle income children and adolescents to have adequate access to psychiatric care or to receive the relationship-based treatment that was formerly the standard of care. For many young people, the psychiatric care available appears to be either drugs, or nothing.
One of the four recommended actions included:
Plans must be required to canvas participating providers regularly to determine those providers who are actually available to see enrollees seeking to begin treatment. This information must be made easily available to enrollees so that they are not required to telephone their way through the provider list only to be told that participating psychiatrists are not participating after all, or are not seeing new patients.
Unfortunately, it is common for payers to inflate the apparent size of their network by not keeping them accurate and up-to-date and including providers who no longer accept new patients or who do not take certain age groups or clinical problems. This report found that some payers had advertised networks that were 2, 3, and 4 times their actual effective size. (Is that fraud?)

Homework for the future: How many psychiatrists are in your network? How accurate is it?

Tuesday, August 07, 2012

Podcast #68: Supermax, Health Exchanges, Statins, and e-Novels



Here's what we talk about:


  • Clink talks about the burning issues in corrections, including a class action suit against a federal control unit prison in Colorado, filed by a civil rights organization.  Allegations include the idea that correctional officers were abusive and that mental health services were inadequate.  You can read more about this in Clink's article here.
Clink provides the following links:


  • Roy talks about the Supreme Court decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) and talks about the Mental Health Parity Act and the delay in getting this clarified.  Roy believes there will be increased access to mental health care.   
  •  Roy talks about Network adequacy and whether providers are actually available.  Here is his link to his article on Health Information Exchanges. 
  •  Dinah talks about statins and depression and and reads from Emily Dean's blog on Evolutionary Psychiatry where she discuss statins and depression and violence and cholesterol.  The guinea pig pictured above has a fine lipid profile.

  • Dinah  talks about her new novel : Home Inspection.                
        
This podcast is available on iTunes or as an RSS feed or Feedburner feed. You can also listen to or download the mp3 or the MPEG-4 file from mythreeshrinks.com

Thank you for listening.
Send your questions and comments to: mythreeshrinksATgmailDOTcom, or comment on this post.
To review our podcast, please go to iTunes.
To review our book, please go to Amazon.

Monday, July 30, 2012

Roy on the Diane Rehm Show Tomorrow and other Shrink Rapper News

Roy will be on the Diane Rehm show tomorrow at 10 AM Eastern Time, do tune in:

"The deadly Colorado shooting underscores the need to better identify, diagnose and treat people with mental illness. Diane and guests will discuss the future of mental health services under the Affordable Care Act."

Guests include Rachel Garfield from the Kaiser Family Foundation, Pamela Hyde from SAMHSA, and Richard Frank, the Harvard health economist. Links to the audio and transcript ARE HERE.

Clink blogs about psychiatry's obligation to be careful in talking about the Aurora shooter here.   


Roy blogs about health care integration here.   He's kind enough to tell us what health care integration is.


And Home Inspection is now on sale for $2.99 on Kindle here.



Friday, July 13, 2012

The Racket We're Making on Clinical Psychiatry News


Are "med checks" as the mainstay of psychiatric care just a racket?  I wrote about this on our column over on Clinical Psychiatry News.  While I think that brief med checks are fine for some patients, and even all they might want, as a standard paradigm for psychiatric treatment in a one-appointment-length-for-everyone, I think this is destroying psychiatry. What do you think?


And speaking of rackets, Roy had a article up there last week on Insurance Networks and mental health parity.  Does your insurance network list psychiatrists who aren't taking new patients, who don't see outpatients, who only do research, or who are dead? 


And just in case you missed it, Clink had yet another article about maximum security prisons, federal lawsuits, and the treatment of prisoners. 

Friday, August 05, 2011

Retriever Blog: Fad Diagnoses in Kiddie Psychiatry?


In response to Joy Bliss' post (Fad diagnosis in Psychiatry: Bipolar Disorder in children) on Maggie's Farm,  Retriever wrote about her experience with a child with an early and severe mental illness, and short-sighted attempts to reduce access to needed intensive mental health treatment for children.

I do think that diagnosing behavior problems in kids has been overextended, due more to loose interpretation of current diagnostic criteria rather than to overbroad criteria. But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

(Speaking of water, taking a break here from vacation to post an image from Southwest Harbor, Maine.)

Wednesday, March 09, 2011

Guest Blogger Dr. Robin Weiss on Stigma and Health Insurance Parity




I'm borrowing this from Robin, who wrote it a while back when she was our state psychiatric society's prez. A little background: Robin was a pediatrician, turned health policy expert, turned psychiatrist. I'm guessing that she didn't do her second residency training in psychiatry so that she could write prescriptions for 40 patients a day, but I could be wrong. Except that I'm not.

---------------------


Psychiatry has always seemed to me to be the most fundamental and inclusive medical specialty. What psychiatrists understand is this: Human illness is a dynamic function of genetics and environment, and genetics and environment are further influenced and changed by each other. So we understand that existential angst, psychodynamics, family structure, goodness of fit between parent and child, inborn temperament, neurotransmitters, brain structure and function, and more, are all part of the illness mix -- just as true listening, various forms of psychotherapy, and psychopharmacology are all part of the treatment. It is this understanding that elevates psychiatry to a model for all medical specialties. Furthermore, mental illness disrupts and damages those very human capacities that we value most -- our thinking, our emotional lives, and our behavior. I don’t mean to create a competition among the organs (pancreas, liver, kidney vs. mind/brain), but certainly those functions executed by the brain underlie all else. In light of all this, what could possibly account for psychiatric treatment’s peripheral, holding-on -by-the-skin-of-our-teeth insurance coverage status?

Dr. Myrna Weissman, in JAMA, wrote an editorial titled Stigma. She describes the experience of her friend’s fourteen year old son as he struggled with first, serious mental illness, and later, leukemia. What his mother encountered first was her insurance company’s refusal to authorize a comprehensive evaluation; a useless three day hospitalization leading to an episode with the legal system; blame for her son’s behavior; and more care provided by the education system than by the medical care system. What she encountered when he developed symptoms of leukemia was prompt diagnosis and full treatment; an expectation that there would be relapses; compassion and support; and full insurance coverage for hospitalizations, partial hospitalizations, and home care. Dr. Weissman concludes that the stigma associated with mental illness leads to lack of insurance parity, which leads to heartbreakingly bad care -- this, at a time when each week brings breathtaking new research findings about the etiologies of mental illnesses and their treatment.

---------

So what do you think? This paper was written in 2001. Has much changed? We hear a lot about psychiatry being under-funded because the research and the proof aren't there. It seems it can always be done with less (less time, less therapy, less hospital beds --okay, fewer hospital beds--, less expensive medications, less education) or so we're told. I personally think the insurance companies simply want to part with as little money as possible, and that certain illnesses garner more sympathy than others. Can you imagine the uproar if an insurance company refused to pay for a child's treatment for leukemia? And with all the push for parity, is it getting any better for psychiatry? Or is just getting worse for the other specialties?

Sunday, November 08, 2009

Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes!


The times they are a-changing....

Next year, the new parity laws for mental health will go into effect: health insurance must cover mental disorders the same when it covers other medical illnesses, without limits on visits, or higher co-pays. It remains to be seen how this will play out-- my fear has been that the response might be to simply eliminate mental health benefits from insurance policies. From the American Psychological Association (sorry, it was a pdf file so there is not a direct link) on the Wellstone-Domenici Parity Act of 2008 :

The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (The “Wellstone-Domenici Parity Act”) will end health insurance benefits inequity between mental health/substance use disorders and medical/surgical benefits for group health plans with more than 50 employees. Under this new law a group health plan of 50 or more employees that provides both physical and mental health/ substance use benefits must ensure that all financial requirements and treatment limitations applicable to mental health/substance use disorder benefits are no more restrictive than those requirements and limitations placed on physical benefits. This means that equity in coverage will apply to all financial requirements, including lifetime and annual dollar limits, deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, and out-of-pocket expenses, and to all treatment limitations, including frequency of treatment, number of visits, days of coverage and other similar limits.

We don't know yet how this will play out...I hate that little clause "...that provides both physical and mental health/substance use benefits..." because it's left as an option. Would we tolerate a health insurance plan that excluded pneumonia or cancer? And it would be so nice if one could see a psychiatrist without pre-authorization (do you need pre-authorization to go to the doctor for your back pain or headaches or fever?) but my guess is that won't play out, since surgeries require pre-approval in many plans.

The New York Times has an optimistic piece on upcoming parity. Leslie Alderman writes in "In Anxious Times: Help for the Mind as Well as the Body:" Alderman writes:

The law’s changes can be good and not so good. Good, because you might have access to more care. Not so good if there are new requirements, like getting precertification for coverage, that place additional barriers to getting treatment, says Kaye Pestaina, vice president of health care compliance for the Segal Company, a benefits consulting firm.

“Employees should make sure their employer provides information to them about any new medical management rules,” Ms. Pestaina said.

Okay, so the House just passed the President's Health Care Reform bill (all 1,990 pages of it). What might this mean for psychiatry and how will parity play out in a newly-insured American?

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Shrink Rap: Grand Rounds is up at Emergiblog


Check out this week's Grand Rounds on Emergiblog.

Notables:

Friday, October 24, 2008

Parity as Bogus Bail-out Bonus?


[credit: flickr user The_Leader]

Nice to see Clink sharing her AAPL learnings with us, as the forensic experts try to understand the behavior of forensic bogeymen (or the gender-neutral bogeypeople) like Freddie and Jason.   Just in time for Halloween

I was struck by the total lack of understanding by two nay-sayers in yesterday's Opinion column in the Baltimore Sun.  Richard Vatz and Jeffrey Schaler often write about the so-called "myth of mental illness", taking a page from the 1960 Szasz book of the same name.

In the newspaper article, they lambast our legislators for using "political legerdemain" to sneak the long-negotiated Mental Health Parity Bill into the $700B bank bail-out bill.  Their opinion is that the category of "mental illness" is too broad and too costly, and provides an impression that most people with a label of mental illness are actually just whiny babies who can't accept the responsibility of dealing with "problems in living", like death, rape, or loss of job/house/401k/spouse.  They write:
"• Supporters of parity celebrate the new law as signaling the end of "stigma," but they fail to consider that stigmatization is a marvelous negative reinforcer for undesired behavior, some of which is called "mental illness." 


• Substance disorders are arguably a function of behavioral choices and in no way constitute diseases to which insurance should apply. Such self-destructive behavior is best explained by mindset, personal values and how a person copes with his or her environment. Incidence varies by cultural context, and people can clearly stop or control their addictions through an exercise of free will. Not so when it comes to bodily illness; one can no more will away cancer, heart disease or diabetes than he or she can will their onset."
Lack of understanding.

They appear to also have a lack of understanding about how our health care system works for other (non-mental) illnesses.  One of the reasons they are against parity is that "there is no way to accurately confirm or disconfirm 'mental illness' ."  The same could be said for many somatic problems, such as headaches, back pain, nausea, and fatigue.  However, our health care system will pay for treatment of all these conditions, no matter how minor or subjective.  There is not a severity-based system where only physical conditions deemed worthy or severe enough get covered.  If you go to the doctor for a stubbed toe, the insurance company will pay for the visit and the Xray.  So, unless they advocate just as strongly for similar changes to the rest of health care, this argument does not hold water. 

By the way, I also did not like the fact that the Parity bill was tacked on to the Bail-out bill, but only because I think such a bill should pass on its own merits.  

And with Halloween right around the corner, what is truly frightening about their article is that one of the authors is an associate editor for the Psychology section of USA Today magazine, and is thus in an influential position to control what the nation's population of hotel customers and other readers get to read about these topics.  [Correction: I think this is USA Today Magazine, which appears to be a very different animal than the newspaper that gets placed in front of every hotel room door every morning... still...]

Boo!

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Landmark Medicare Bill Passes Senate; Removes Federal Discrimination Against Mentally Ill

Yesterday, the US Senate passed, by a 69-30 vote, a bill that would finally remove the anachronistic and discriminatory "brain tax" from Medicare.  Elderly and disabled on Medicare have had to pay a 50% copay for outpatient treatment for mental illness since Medicare started in 1965.  Any other type of illness requires only a 20% copay.

But mainstream media is largely ignoring this historic success in the fight against this discrimination.

This blatantly discriminatory and stigmatizing financial penalty against America's seniors has long resulted in undertreatment of mental health problems, often leading to even higher costs for other somatic conditions due to self-neglect.  Finally... a Medicare parity bill that passed both House and Senate!

I did a search on Google News for "medicare bill +mental|psychiatric" and "medicare bill -mental|psychiatric" to determine the number of articles in the past month on the Medicare bill which either did or did not mention the words "mental" or "psychiatric."


6,466 Articles . . . . . DO NOT mention the bill's mental health provisions

   408 Articles . . . . . DO mention the bill's mental health provisions


Please write to these article's authors and tell them to get a clue.  And let Bush know that you don't want him to veto the bill (McCain has already said he would have voted against it).  

This is much bigger news than the annual passage of a bill to block cuts in Medicare physician (and all other providers, BTW, incl. social workers, psychologists, etc) fees.

Sunday, March 30, 2008

It's Sunday Morning--coffee, online shopping and the New York Times

This is published as two posts. The photo was enough to drive blogger mad. Scroll down for the rest.

Roy and I have communicated this morning. We're both on our second cup of coffee. I've been shopping on Lands End and I made a Model Me. The hair is a bit wilder than mine, the complexion much darker, no toenail polish, but aside from that, it's me. Roy tried to make himself and he couldn't. I tried to make him, and I couldn't. We won't talk about how long it took to get my Model Me onto the blog. Do you like my new outfit?




From Clink: I can't believe Dinah's got me doing this. OK, so I fixed her picture a bit and then decided to add me. Save this post for the police sketch artist in case I ever disappear.

The Rest of my Post From Above: The New York Times: Parity and Book Deals



So The Sunday New York Times:

The Murky Politics of Mind-Body
by Sarah Kershaw is a Roy article on mental health parity-- he loves this stuff, but I just couldn't add to his To Do List while he's unable to even make a Model Roy.

Ms. Kershaw writes:

This month, the House passed a bill that would require insurance companies to provide mental health insurance parity. It was the first time it has approved a proposal so substantial.

Great stuff, and I'm all in favor of parity bills. The article has some good stuff about the murkiness of mental health diagnoses. The catch to the bill:

The House bill would require insurance companies that offer mental health benefits to cover treatment for the hundreds of diagnoses included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, from paranoid schizophrenia to stuttering to insomnia to chronic melancholy, or dysthymia.

"That offer mental health benefits."

Oh, they can still not offer mental health benefits.

The next piece from he style section was "Why Blog? Reason No. 92: Book Deal"

And to think, I thought it was an original idea. Can the Shrink Rappers join the bandwagon?

Coming soon, the final installment of In Treatment.

Saturday, March 08, 2008

No Cherry Blossoms Yet

Just had to break up the In Treatment monotony here.  Hangin' out at the Omni Shoreham in DC this AM with a friend at the Work, Stress and Health Conference.   Above is the restaurant behind me as I type this out (which has great banana nut French toast, BTW).  We're off to one of the Smithsonians, maybe the American Indian History one or the new butterfly exhibit at the Natural History Museum.  If it stops raining, we'll do the zoo instead, which is just around the corner.

Hey, we did a podcast last Sunday, and I now have time today to get it produced and posted, so stay tuned.   Also, the House version of the Mental Health Parity bill passed a couple days ago (yay!), so now the trick is to get the House and Senate versions reconciled.

Catch ya later.
-Roy

Friday, September 14, 2007

H.R. 1424 - Wellstone Mental Health & Addiction Equity Act of 2007


Here is the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of what the costs will be. Some highlights...

H.R. 1424 would prohibit group health plans and group health insurance issuers that provide
both medical and surgical benefits and mental health benefits from imposing treatment
limitations or financial requirements for coverage of mental health benefits (including
benefits for substance abuse treatment) that are different from those used for medical and
surgical benefits.

Enacting the bill would affect both federal revenues and direct spending for Medicaid,
beginning in 2008. The bill would result in higher premiums for employer-sponsored health
benefits. Higher premiums, in turn, would result in more of an employee's compensation
being received in the form of nontaxable employer-paid premiums, and less in the form of
taxable wages. As a result of this shift, federal income and payroll tax revenues would
decline. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the proposal would reduce federal
tax revenues by $1.1 billion over the 2008-2012 period and by $3.1 billion over the 2008-
2017 period. Social Security payroll taxes, which are off-budget, would account for about
35 percent of those totals.

The bill's requirements for issuers of group health insurance would apply to managed care
plans in the Medicaid program. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1424 would increase
federal direct spending for Medicaid by $310 million over the 2008-2012 period and by
$820 million over the 2008-2017 period. In addition, assuming appropriation of the
necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1424 would have discretionary
costs of $20 million in 2008, $143 million over the 2008-2012 period, and $322 million over
the 2008-2017 period.
. . .
Under current law, the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 requires a more-limited
form of parity between mental health and medical and surgical coverage. That mandate is
set to expire at the end of 2007. Thus, H.R. 1424 would both extend and expand the existing
mandate requiring mental health parity. CBO estimates that the direct costs of the private-
sector mandate in the bill would total about $1.3 billion in 2008, and would grow in later
years. That amount would significantly exceed the annual threshold established by UMRA
($131 million in 2007, adjusted for inflation) in each of the years that the mandate would be
in effect.

Their analysis does not appear to take into effect the increased tax revenue resulting from increased wages and productivity from improved mental health treatment, nor does it seem to reflect the reduction in state and federal payments for uninsured individuals resulting from folks reaching their current discriminatory maximums. This analysis seems a little incomplete, judging from the summary.

Friday, August 17, 2007

My Three Shrinks Podcast 30: Parity Feels Like a Bird


[29] . . . [30] . . . [31] . . . [All]

So we are back from vacations and stuff. We had two podcasts we recorded before we took our relative hiatus, and this is the first of them. I plan to get the next one out over the weekend.



August 17, 2007: #30 Parity Feels Like a Bird



Topics include:
  • Mental Health Insurance Parity Legislation. 20-minute discussion about some of the current legislation (mind you this was recorded before the revisions made in early August to SB 558). Go to this link to see recent parity-related posts. This leads into a brief discussion of...
  • Mind-Body Dualism. Why are there different rules for brain stuff than for body stuff? Isn't the brain part of the body? Will we still be having this debate in yet another 2400 years?
  • Pink Floyd's Syd Barrett. Brief mention of my post last month, Shine On, You Crazy Diamond, which, in turn, points to the "Images in Psychiatry" section of the July, 2007, issue of AJP, a tribute written by Paolo Fusar-Poli. "Nobody knows where you are, How near or how far."
  • Three articles on suicide in the July 2007 AJP. The first, by Simon & Savarino, is a well-done study looking at the relationship between the initiation of depression treatment (medication or psychotherapy) and suicide attempts by looking at outpatient insurance claims of a half-million members. They found that suicide attempt rates were highest in the month before treatment initiation, and that the patterns were similar for medications and psychotherapy. See below image. Most of the people (some 90% or so) were being treated by their primary care physicians. Those with the highest risk appeared to have been referred on to therapists or psychiatrists. Regardless (and not surprisingly), the patterns were the same. As stated by David Brent in his editorial, "it is much more likely that suicidal behavior leads to treatment than that treatment leads to suicidal behavior."

  • 2nd Suicide Article by Posner et al about Classifying Suicidal Events. The Columbia Classification Algorithm of Suicide Assessment (C-CASA) is explained, in an attempt to standardize the disparate definitions currently in use across treatment trials. Click here to see examples of difficulties in defining injurious behaviors as adverse events. Click here to see the Table of C-CASA definitions and training examples.

  • 3rd Suicide Article by Gibbons et al about the Relationship Between Antidepressant Initiation and Suicide Attempts in a Large Veteran Population. This group found that SSRI antidepressants had a protective effect. "Suicide attempt rates were lower among patients who were treated with antidepressants than among those who were not..."
The last few seconds is from Astronomy Domine, from Pink Floyd's album, Pipers at the Gate of Dawn, can be purchased at iTunes.

The next podcast, or podette, will be a brief one (for us) which I will post this weekend (yes, two podcasts in as many days... we have to make up for lost time somehow) prior to our next regular podcast, which we will record on Aug 19, probably between 3-5 pm ET. If any other psychiatrist listeners can join in at that time via Skype or Talkshoe, let us know and we might include you as a guest on the show.






Find show notes with links at: http://mythreeshrinks.com/. The address to send us your Q&A's is there, as well.

This podcast is available on iTunes (feel free to post a review) or as an RSS feed. You can also listen to or download the .mp3 or the MPEG-4 file from mythreeshrinks.com.
Thank you for listening.

SB 558 - Kennedy's Mental Health Parity Bill

I had a hard time tracking some of this stuff down, so thought I'd put it up here to make it easier.

Below is the transcription of the introduction of SB558 in the Senate on Feb 12, 2007 (with more from Aug 3 at the end):
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Brown, Mr. Smith, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Warner, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Hatch, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Collins, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Biden, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Nelson of Nebraska):

S . 558 . A bill to provide parity between health insurance coverage of mental health benefits and benefits for medical and surgical services; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Mr. KENNEDY. Access to mental health services is one of the most important and most neglected civil rights issues facing the Nation. For too long, persons living with mental disorders have suffered discriminatory treatment at all levels of society. They have been forced to pay more for the services they need and to worry about their job security if their employer finds out about their condition. Sadly, in America today, patients with biochemical problems in their liver are treated with better care and greater compassion than patients with biochemical problems in their brain.

That kind of discrimination must end. No one questions the need for affordable treatment of physical illnesses. But those who suffer from mental illnesses face serious barriers in obtaining the care they need at a cost they can afford. Like those suffering from physical illnesses, persons with mental disorders deserve the opportunity for quality care. The failure to obtain treatment can mean years of shattered dreams and unfulfilled potential.

Eleven years ago, Congress passed the first Mental Health Parity Act. That legislation was an important first step in bringing attention to discriminatory practices against the mentally ill, but it did little to correct the injustices that so many Americans continue to face. The 1996 legislation required that annual and lifetime dollar limits for mental health coverage must be no less than the limits for medical and surgical coverage. But more steps are clearly needed to guarantee that Americans suffering from mental illness are not forced to pay more for the services they need, do not face harsher limitations on treatment, and are not denied access to care.

This bill is a chance to take the actions needed to end the longstanding discrimination against persons with mental illness. The late Senator Paul Wellstone and Senator Pete Domenici deserve great credit for their bipartisan leadership on mental health parity. If it were not for them, we would not be here today.

The bill prohibits group health plans from imposing treatment limitations or financial requirements on the coverage of mental health conditions that do not also apply to physical conditions. That means no limits on days or treatment visits, and no exorbitant co-payments or deductibles. The bill was negotiated by and has the support of the mental health community, the business community, and the insurance industry.

The need is clear. One in five Americans will suffer some form of mental illness this year--but only a third of them will receive treatment. Millions of our fellow citizens are unnecessarily enduring the pain and sadness of seeing a family member, friend, or loved one suffer illnesses that seize the mind and break the spirit.

Battling mental illness is itself a painful process, but discrimination against persons with such illnesses is especially cruel, since the success rates for treatment often equal or surpass those for physical conditions. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, clinical depression treatment can be 70 percent successful, and treatment for schizophrenia can be 60 percent successful.

Over the years we've heard compelling testimony from experts, activists, and patients about the need to equalize coverage of physical and mental illnesses. The Office of Personnel Management talks us that providing full parity to 8.5 million federal employees has led to minimal premium increases. We heard dramatic testimony about the economic and social advantages of parity, including a healthier, more productive workforce.

Some of the most compelling testimony came several years ago from Lisa Cohen, a hardworking American from New Jersey, who suffers from both physical and mental illnesses, and is forced to pay exorbitant costs for treating her mental disorder, while paying little for her physical disorder. She is typical of millions of Americans who not only face the cruel burden of mental illness, but also the cruel burden of discriminatory treatment. No Americans should be denied equal treatment of an illness because it starts in the brain instead of the heart, lungs, or other parts of their body. No patients should be denied access to the treatment that can cure their illness because of where they live or work.

A number of States have already enacted mental health parity laws, but 86 million workers under ERISA have no protection under state mental health statutes.

Mental health parity is a good investment for the Nation. The costs from lost worker productivity and extra physical care outweigh the costs of implementing parity for mental health treatment.

Over the years study after study has shown that parity makes good financial sense. An analysis of more than 46,000 workers at major companies showed that employees who report being depressed or under stress are likely to have substantially higher health costs than co-workers without such conditions. Employees who reported being depressed had health bills 70 percent higher than those who did not suffer from depression. Those reporting high stress had 46 percent higher health costs. McDonnell Douglas found a 4 to 1 return on investment after accounting for lower medical claims, reduced absenteeism, and smaller turnover.

Mental illness also imposes a huge financial burden on the Nation. It costs us $300 billion each year in treatment expenses, lost worker productivity, and crime. This country can afford mental health parity. What we can't afford is to continue denying persons with mental disorders the care they need.

Today is a turning point. We are finally moving toward ending this shameful form of discrimination in our society--discrimination against mental illness. This bill has been seven years in the making, and brings first class medicine to millions of Americans who have been second class patients for too long.

Today, we begin to right that wrong, by guaranteeing equal treatment to the 11 million people receiving mental health services, and promising equal treatment to the remaining 100 million insured workers and their families who never know the day they may need their mental health benefit.

The 1996 Act, was an important step towards ending health insurance discrimination against mental illness. This bill will take another large step forward by closing the loopholes that remain.

It guarantees co-payments, deductibles, coinsurance, out of pocket expenses and annual and lifetime limits that apply to mental health benefits are no different than those applied to medical and surgical benefits.

It guarantees that the frequency of treatment, number of visits, days of coverage and other limits on scope and duration of treatment for mental health services are no different than those applied to medical and surgical benefits.

This equal treatment and financial equity is also applied to substance abuse.

Features of State law that require coverage of mental disorders are protected, to assure those currently protected by state parity laws that their needs will be met.

The medical management strategies needed to prevent denial of medically needed services for patients remain intact.

Finally, the bill is modeled on the parity that is already guaranteed to the 8.5 million persons, including Members of Congress, under the Federal Employee Benefits Program,

Equal treatment of those affected by mental illness is not just an insurance issue. It's a civil rights issue. At its heart, mental health parity is a question of simple justice.

It is long past time to end insurance discrimination and guarantee all people with mental illness the coverage they deserve.

I urge my colleagues to support this important principle, and end the unacceptable double standards that have unfairly plagued our health care systems for so long.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleagues Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi to introduce the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007. I want to thank my colleagues for all of their hard work on this issue and I am glad we are able to introduce this paramount legislation.

Simply put, our legislation will provide parity between mental health coverage and medical and surgical coverage. No longer will people be treated differently only because they suffer from a mental illness. This means 113 million people in group health plans will benefit from our bill.

We are here today after years of hard work. We have worked with the mental health community, the business community, and insurance groups to carefully construct a fair bill. A sampling of the groups include the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Retail Federation, and Aetna Insurance.

This bill will no longer apply a more restrictive standard to mental health coverage and another more lenient standard be applied to medical and surgical coverage. What we are doing is a matter of simple fairness. Statistics demonstrate that there is a significant need for this change in policy. Currently, 26 percent of American adults or nearly 58 million people suffer from a diagnosable mental illness each year. Six percent of those adults suffer from a serious mental illness. Additionally, more than 30,000 people commit suicide each year in the United States. We need to reduce these numbers, and I believe expanding access to mental health services will allow us to do so.

This bill will provide mental health parity for about 113 million Americans who work for employers with 50 or more employees and ensure health plans do not place more restrictive conditions on mental health coverage than on medical and surgical coverage. Additionally, the legislation includes parity for financial requirements such as deductibles, copayments, and annual lifetime limits. Also, this bill includes parity for treatment limitations regarding the number of covered hospital days and visits. This bill does not Mandate the coverage of mental health nor does it prohibit a health plan from managing mental health benefits in order to ensure only medically necessary treatments are covered.

Again, I would like to thank everyone who contributed to the development of this legislation. I believe we are making a difference today and I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this bill forward.

I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill to be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Here is the text of the bill:

S . 558

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Mental Health Parity Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. MENTAL HEALTH PARITY.

(a) Amendments of ERISA.--Subpart B of part 7 of title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after section 712 (29 U.S.C. 1185a) the following:

``SEC. 712A. MENTAL HEALTH PARITY.

``(a) In General.--In the case of a group health plan (or health insurance coverage offered in connection with such a plan) that provides both medical and surgical benefits and mental health benefits, such plan or coverage shall ensure that--

``(1) the financial requirements applicable to such mental health benefits are no more restrictive than the financial requirements applied to substantially all medical and surgical benefits covered by the plan (or coverage), including deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, out-of-pocket expenses, and annual and lifetime limits, except that the plan (or coverage) may not establish separate cost sharing requirements that are applicable only with respect to mental health benefits; and

``(2) the treatment limitations applicable to such mental health benefits are no more restrictive than the treatment limitations applied to substantially all medical and surgical benefits covered by the plan (or coverage), including limits on the frequency of treatment, number of visits, days of coverage, or other similar limits on the scope or duration of treatment.

``(b) Clarifications.--In the case of a group health plan (or health insurance coverage offered in connection with such a plan) that provides both medical and surgical benefits and mental health benefits, such plan or coverage shall not be prohibited from--

``(1) negotiating separate reimbursement or provider payment rates and service delivery systems for different benefits consistent with subsection (a);

``(2) managing the provision of mental health benefits in order to provide medically necessary services for covered benefits, including through the use of any utilization review, authorization or management practices, the application of medical necessity and appropriateness criteria applicable to behavioral health, and the contracting with and use of a network of providers; or

``(3) applying the provisions of this section in a manner that takes into consideration similar treatment settings or similar treatments.

``(c) In- and Out-of-Network.--

``(1) IN GENERAL.--In the case of a group health plan (or health insurance coverage offered in connection with such a plan) that provides both medical and surgical benefits and mental health benefits, and that provides such benefits on both an in- and out-of-network basis pursuant to the terms of the plan (or coverage), such plan (or coverage) shall ensure that the requirements of this section are applied to both in- and out-of-network services by comparing in-network medical and surgical benefits to in-network mental health benefits and out-of-network medical and surgical benefits to out-of-network mental health benefits, except that in no event shall this subsection require the provision of out-of-network coverage for mental health benefits even in the case where out-of-network coverage is provided for medical and surgical benefits.

``(2) CLARIFICATION.--Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed as requiring that a group health plan (or coverage in connection with such a plan) eliminate an out-of-network provider option from such plan (or coverage) pursuant to the terms of the plan (or coverage).

``(d) Small Employer Exemption.--

``(1) IN GENERAL.--This section shall not apply to any group health plan (and group health insurance coverage offered in connection with a group health plan) for any plan year of any employer who employed an average of at least 2 (or 1 in the case of an employer residing in a State that permits small groups to include a single individual) but not more than 50 employees on business days during the preceding calendar year.

``(2) APPLICATION OF CERTAIN RULES IN DETERMINATION OF EMPLOYER SIZE.--For purposes of this subsection:

``(A) APPLICATION OF AGGREGATION RULE FOR EMPLOYERS.--Rules similar to the rules under subsections (b), (c), (m), and (o) of section 414 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall apply for purposes of treating persons as a single employer.

``(B) EMPLOYERS NOT IN EXISTENCE IN PRECEDING YEAR.--In the case of an employer which was not in existence throughout the preceding calendar year, the determination of whether such employer is a small employer shall be based on the average number of employees that it is reasonably expected such employer will employ on business days in the current calendar year.

``(C) PREDECESSORS.--Any reference in this paragraph to an employer shall include a reference to any predecessor of such employer.

``(e) Cost Exemption.--

``(1) IN GENERAL.--With respect to a group health plan (or health insurance coverage offered in connections with such a plan), if the application of this section to such plan (or coverage) results in an increase for the plan year involved of the actual total costs of coverage with respect to medical and surgical benefits and mental health benefits under the plan (as determined and certified

[Page: S1866] GPO's PDF
under paragraph (3)) by an amount that exceeds the applicable percentage described in paragraph (2) of the actual total plan costs, the provisions of this section shall not apply to such plan (or coverage) during the following plan year, and such exemption shall apply to the plan (or coverage) for 1 plan year. An employer may elect to continue to apply mental health parity pursuant to this section with respect to the group health plan (or coverage) involved regardless of any increase in total costs.
``(2) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.--With respect to a plan (or coverage), the applicable percentage described in this paragraph shall be--

``(A) 2 percent in the case of the first plan year in which this section is applied; and

``(B) 1 percent in the case of each subsequent plan year.

``(3) DETERMINATIONS BY ACTUARIES.--Determinations as to increases in actual costs under a plan (or coverage) for purposes of this section shall be made by a qualified actuary who is a member in good standing of the American Academy of Actuaries. Such determinations shall be certified by the actuary and be made available to the general public.

``(4) 6-month DETERMINATIONS.--If a group health plan (or a health insurance issuer offering coverage in connections with a group health plan) seeks an exemption under this subsection, determinations under paragraph (1) shall be made after such plan (or coverage) has complied with this section for the first 6 months of the plan year involved.

``(5) NOTIFICATION.--An election to modify coverage of mental health benefits as permitted under this subsection shall be treated as a material modification in the terms of the plan as described in section 102(a)(1) and shall be subject to the applicable notice requirements under section 104(b)(1).

``(f) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a group health plan (or health insurance coverage offered in connection with such a plan) to provide any mental health benefits.

``(g) Mental Health Benefits.--In this section, the term `mental health benefits' means benefits with respect to mental health services (including substance abuse treatment) as defined under the terms of the group health plan or coverage.''.

(b) Public Health Service Act.--Subpart 1 of part A of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act is amended by inserting after section 2705 (42 U.S.C. 300gg-5) the following:

``SEC. 2705A. MENTAL HEALTH PARITY.

``(a) In General.--In the case of a group health plan (or health insurance coverage offered in connection with such a plan) that provides both medical and surgical benefits and mental health benefits, such plan or coverage shall ensure that--

``(1) the financial requirements applicable to such mental health benefits are no more restrictive than the financial requirements applied to substantially all medical and surgical benefits covered by the plan (or coverage), including deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, out-of-pocket expenses, and annual and lifetime limits, except that the plan (or coverage) may not establish separate cost sharing requirements that are applicable only with respect to mental health benefits; and

``(2) the treatment limitations applicable to such mental health benefits are no more restrictive than the treatment limitations applied to substantially all medical and surgical benefits covered by the plan (or coverage), including limits on the frequency of treatment, number of visits, days of coverage, or other similar limits on the scope or duration of treatment.

``(b) Clarifications.--In the case of a group health plan (or health insurance coverage offered in connection with such a plan) that provides both medical and surgical benefits and mental health benefits, such plan or coverage shall not be prohibited from--

``(1) negotiating separate reimbursement or provider payment rates and service delivery systems for different benefits consistent with subsection (a);

``(2) managing the provision of mental health benefits in order to provide medically necessary services for covered benefits, including through the use of any utilization review, authorization or management practices, the application of medical necessity and appropriateness criteria applicable to behavioral health, and the contracting with and use of a network of providers; or

``(3) be prohibited from applying the provisions of this section in a manner that takes into consideration similar treatment settings or similar treatments.

``(c) In- and Out-of-Network.--

``(1) IN GENERAL.--In the case of a group health plan (or health insurance coverage offered in connection with such a plan) that provides both medical and surgical benefits and mental health benefits, and that provides such benefits on both an in- and out-of-network basis pursuant to the terms of the plan (or coverage), such plan (or coverage) shall ensure that the requirements of this section are applied to both in- and out-of-network services by comparing in-network medical and surgical benefits to in-network mental health benefits and out-of-network medical and surgical benefits to out-of-network mental health benefits, except that in no event shall this subsection require the provision of out-of-network coverage for mental health benefits even in the case where out-of-network coverage is provided for medical and surgical benefits.

``(2) CLARIFICATION.--Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed as requiring that a group health plan (or coverage in connection with such a plan) eliminate an out-of-network provider option from such plan (or coverage) pursuant to the terms of the plan (or coverage).

``(d) Small Employer Exemption.--

``(1) IN GENERAL.--This section shall not apply to any group health plan (and group health insurance coverage offered in connection with a group health plan) for any plan year of any employer who employed an average of at least 2 (or 1 in the case of an employer residing in a State that permits small groups to include a single individual) but not more than 50 employees on business days during the preceding calendar year.

``(2) APPLICATION OF CERTAIN RULES IN DETERMINATION OF EMPLOYER SIZE.--For purposes of this subsection:

``(A) APPLICATION OF AGGREGATION RULE FOR EMPLOYERS.--Rules similar to the rules under subsections (b), (c), (m), and (o) of section 414 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall apply for purposes of treating persons as a single employer.

``(B) EMPLOYERS NOT IN EXISTENCE IN PRECEDING YEAR.--In the case of an employer which was not in existence throughout the preceding calendar year, the determination of whether such employer is a small employer shall be based on the average number of employees that it is reasonably expected such employer will employ on business days in the current calendar year.

``(C) PREDECESSORS.--Any reference in this paragraph to an employer shall include a reference to any predecessor of such employer.

``(e) Cost Exemption.--

``(1) IN GENERAL.--With respect to a group health plan (or health insurance coverage offered in connections with such a plan), if the application of this section to such plan (or coverage) results in an increase for the plan year involved of the actual total costs of coverage with respect to medical and surgical benefits and mental health benefits under the plan (as determined and certified under paragraph (3)) by an amount that exceeds the applicable percentage described in paragraph (2) of the actual total plan costs, the provisions of this section shall not apply to such plan (or coverage) during the following plan year, and such exemption shall apply to the plan (or coverage) for 1 plan year. An employer may elect to continue to apply mental health parity pursuant to this section with respect to the group health plan (or coverage) involved regardless of any increase in total costs.

``(2) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.--With respect to a plan (or coverage), the applicable percentage described in this paragraph shall be--

``(A) 2 percent in the case of the first plan year in which this section is applied; and

``(B) 1 percent in the case of each subsequent plan year.

``(3) DETERMINATIONS BY ACTUARIES.--Determinations as to increases in actual costs under a plan (or coverage) for purposes of this section shall be made by a qualified actuary who is a member in good standing of the American Academy of Actuaries. Such determinations shall be certified by the actuary and be made available to the general public.

``(4) 6-month DETERMINATIONS.--If a group health plan (or a health insurance issuer offering coverage in connections with a group health plan) seeks an exemption under this subsection, determinations under paragraph (1) shall be made after such plan (or coverage) has complied with this section for the first 6 months of the plan year involved.

``(5) NOTIFICATION.--An election to modify coverage of mental health benefits as permitted under this subsection shall be treated as a material modification in the terms of the plan as described in section 102(a)(1) and shall be subject to the applicable notice requirements under section 104(b)(1).

``(f) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a group health plan (or health insurance coverage offered in connection with such a plan) to provide any mental health benefits.

``(g) Mental Health Benefits.--In this section, the term `mental health benefits' means benefits with respect to mental health services (including substance abuse treatment) as defined under the terms of the group health plan or coverage, and when applicable as may be defined under State law when applicable to health insurance coverage offered in connection with a group health plan.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) In General.--The provisions of this Act shall apply to group health plans (or health insurance coverage offered in connection with such plans) beginning in the first plan year that begins on or after January 1 of the first calendar year that begins more than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) Termination of Certain Provisions.--

(1) ERISA.--Section 712 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1185a) is amended by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:

``(f) Sunset.--This section shall not apply to benefits for services furnished after the effective date described in section 3(a) of the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007.''.

(2) PHSA.--Section 2705 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-5) is amended by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:

[if there was more, I couldn't find it...]
===========================================================

And here is the link to the additional changes made on Aug 3.

Saturday, July 14, 2007

H.R.1663 - Stark's Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act

There are several bills before Congress that would help to end insurance discrimination against people with mental health problems. In addition to HR1663, there is also SB558, HR1367, and HR1424.

Here is Pete Stark's speech introducing his HR1663 [pdf], the Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act (my emphasis added):
SPEECH OF HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FRIDAY, MARCH 23, 2007

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues JIM RAMSTAD of Minnesota and PATRICK KENNEDY from Rhode Island to introduce the Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act, a bill to provide mental health parity in Medicare. I have introduced a version of this bill in every Congress since 1994. Perhaps this time we can actually enact it.

Medicare's mental health benefit is fashioned on treatments provided in 1965, but mental health care has changed dramatically over the last 42 years. Medicare limits inpatient coverage at psychiatric hospitals to 190 days over an individual's lifetime. In addition, beneficiaries are charged a discriminatory 50 percent coinsurance for outpatient psychotherapy services, compared to 20 percent for physical health services.

The Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act eliminates this blatant mental health discrimination under Medicare and modernizes the Medicare mental health benefit to meet today's standards of care.

This bill is long overdue. One in five members of our senior population displays mental difficulties that are not part of the normal aging process. In primary care settings, more than a third of senior citizens demonstrate symptoms of depression and impaired social functioning. Yet only one out of every three mentally ill seniors receives the mental health services he/she needs. Older adults also have one of the highest rates of suicide of any segment of our population. In addition, mental illness is the single largest diagnostic category for Medicare beneficiaries who qualify as disabled.

There is a critical need for effective and accessible mental health care for our Medicare population. Recent research has found a direct relationship between treating depression in older adults and improved physical functioning associated with independent living. Unfortunately, the current structure of Medicare mental health benefits is inadequate and presents multiple barriers to access of essential treatment. This bill addresses these problems.

The Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act is a straightforward bill that improves Medicare's mental health benefits as follows:

It reduces the discriminatory co-payment for outpatient mental health services from 50 percent to the 20 percent level charged for most other Part B medical services.

It eliminates the arbitrary 190-day lifetime cap on inpatient services in psychiatric hospitals.

It improves beneficiary access to mental health services by including within Medicare a number of community-based residential and intensive outpatient mental health services that characterize today's state-of-the-art clinical practices.

It further improves access to needed mental health services by addressing the shortage of qualified mental health professionals serving older and disabled Americans in rural and other medically underserved areas by allowing state licensed marriage and family therapists and mental health counselors to provide Medicare-covered services.

Similarly, it corrects a legislative oversight that will facilitate the provision of mental health services by clinical social workers within skilled nursing facilities.

It requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a study to examine whether the Medicare criteria to cover therapeutic services to beneficiaries with Alzheimer's and related cognitive disorders discriminates by being too restrictive.

In April 2002, President Bush identified unfair treatment limitations placed on mental health benefits as a major barrier to mental health care and urged Congress to enact legislation that would provide full parity in the health insurance coverage of mental and physical illnesses. We've made important strides forward for the under-65 population. Twenty-six states have enacted full mental health parity. The Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP) was improved in 2001 to assure that all federal employees and members of Congress are provided parity for mental health and substance abuse treatment. This month, Representatives KENNEDY and RAMSTAD introduced H.R. 1424 , the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act, to provide full parity for mental health and substance abuse in the private insurance market nationwide.

I'm proud to join them in support of this legislation, which was introduced with 256 cosponsors--well more than the 218 majority needed to pass the House of Representatives.

While some in the business community are concerned about increased costs associated with providing these benefits, a recent study of the FEHBP mental health coverage concluded that implementation of parity benefits led to negligible cost increases. In fact, some businesses are now embracing parity because they recognize the increased productivity from workers over the long run and how improving access to mental health services has the potential to avoid other additional costly care.

I am similarly sure that modernizing the Medicare mental health benefit will reduce unnecessary spending. Medicare mental health expenses have historically been heavily skewed toward more expensive inpatient services, with 56 percent of the total going to inpatient care and only 30 percent toward outpatient services in 2001. This relationship is in contrast to national trends showing a reversal in inpatient and outpatient spending over the past decade. In the last 10 years, inpatient spending declined from 40 percent to 24 percent, while outpatient spending increased from 36 percent to 50 percent of all mental health spending. In addition, improving beneficiary access to timely mental health care could well yield savings by minimizing the need for other services.

Science has demonstrated that mental illness and substance abuse are manifestations of biological diseases. It is long past time for
us to take action with regard to Medicare's inadequate mental health benefits and structure. Over the years, Congress has updated Medicare's benefits for treatment of physical illnesses as the practice of medicine has changed. The mental health field has undergone many advances over the past several decades. Effective research-validated interventions have been developed for many mental conditions that affect stricken beneficiaries. Most mental conditions no longer require long-term hospitalizations, and can be effectively treated in less restrictive community settings. This bill recognizes these advances in clinical treatment practices and adjusts Medicare's mental health coverage to account for them.

The Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act removes discriminatory features from the Medicare mental health benefits while facilitating access to up-to-date and affordable mental health services for our senior citizens and people with disabilities. I urge my colleagues to join Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. KENNEDY, and myself in support of this important legislation and to work with us to improve mental health coverage for everyone.

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

Medicare Mental Health Copayment Equity Act of 2007


Here is the letter that the Medicare Mental Health Equity Coalition (MMHEC) sent to Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), thanking them for re-introducing this bill, which would end the discriminatory policy of charging copays for outpatient mental health care which are 250% that of copays for non-mental health care. It takes six years to transition under the plan, but it is better than nothing. It is simply amazing that this type of discrimination has remained for as long as it has.
The undersigned organizations of the Medicare Mental Health Equity Coalition, representing patients, health professionals, health care systems and family members, applaud your introduction of the Medicare Mental Health Copayment Equity Act of 2007 (S.1715). Your legislation will eliminate the unfair provision in federal law imposing a 50 percent coinsurance rate for outpatient mental health services under Medicare instead of the usual 20 percent coinsurance for outpatient services. Our coalition supports enactment of legislation like this that will bring payments for mental health care in line with those required for all other Medicare Part B services.

The Medicare program was established to guarantee health care coverage for all older adults and people with disabilities. However, the 50 percent coinsurance for mental health services has proven to be a harmful barrier preventing many Medicare beneficiaries from accessing services they need. Since its enactment in 1965, we have learned that mental health disorders are highly prevalent in the elderly and disabled populations covered by the Medicare program. A landmark report by the Surgeon General on mental illness in 1999 found that 20 percent of the population aged 55 and older experience mental disorders that are not part of what should be considered as normal aging. In addition, a 2006 report by George Washington University found that 59 percent of Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities have a mental illness and 37 percent have a severe mental illness. Tragically, only about half of those experiencing a mental illness receive mental health treatment, due in large part to antiquated and discriminatory health coverage provisions, such as the 50 percent coinsurance rate under Medicare.

There is simply no reason for maintaining a discriminatory barrier to mental health care for America’s seniors and individuals with disabilities, particularly since these populations present a high incidence of mental health concerns.

We greatly appreciate your leadership in addressing this fundamentally unfair Medicare policy for the 44 million Americans that depend on this program.


MMHEC member organizations include the American Association of Geriatric Psychiatry, the American College of Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the Association for Behavioral Health and Wellness, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc., the Medicare Rights Center, Mental Health America, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Association of Social Workers, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare, Psychologists for Long Term Care, Inc., and the Suicide Prevention Action Network USA.

Please write each of your senators, asking them to co-sponsor this bipartisan bill to end this antiquated, discriminatory policy against people who require mental health treatment.