Our Stories
Share the power of long-term recovery. If you are in recovery, a family member, friend or ally of someone in recovery, we want to hear your recovery story!
Learn more...
Faces & Voices of Recovery's book page
has information on many of the growing number of recovery-related publications. It’s a work in progress, so please let us know of other books that you think we should include. Check it out!
|
Recovery in the News
House approves mental health bill
Peter Urban
Connecticut Post
March 7, 2008
WASHINGTON - Congress took one step forward and another one back this week in forcing insurance companies to fully cover mental health benefits
The House late Wednesday approved, 268-148, legislation that would require insurers to offer broad mental health benefits equal to medical and surgical benefits they provide. It would also prohibit them from reimbursing at a lesser rate or charging larger co-payments for these services.
All five members of the Connecticut delegation, who voted in favor of the bill, were co-sponsors of the legislation introduced by Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I.
Despite the strong support for the legislation shown in the House, the Senate has approved a more pragmatic version that is supported by business and the White House. House Republicans tried to substitute in the Senate version of the bill Wednesday, but the effort failed.
Had they succeeded, the Senate bill could have gone directly to the White House for President Bush to sign into law. Instead, the House-approved bill faces an uncertain future as members of the House and Senate try to work out a compromise.
In September, the Senate unanimously approved legislation that Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Ma., and Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., introduced that would require insurance companies to provide parity between mental health and physical health benefits but the Senate bill gave managed-care providers wide latitude in deciding which mental illnesses would be covered.
Domenici said Thursday that the House had taken "a crucial step" and that Congress now needed to "work toward legislation that can be sent to the President and enacted this year."
Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4, and Rep. Chris Murphy, D-5, spoke on the floor Wednesday evening in favor of the House bill that would prohibit group health insurance providers from imposing treatment limits or financial requirements on mental health and substance-related disorder benefits.
Beyond providing coverage, Murphy said the bill would "put the full power" of Congress "behind the effort to lift that veil of shame and secrecy that too often visits families and patients who are living with mental illness."
Shays also said that more work needs to be done by Congress to "destigmatize this illness" that reportedly effects 50 million adults in the United States. At the same time, he said, Congress must insure access to care and increase research into the causes and treatments of mental disorders.
Almost all health insurance plans now discriminate against patients seeking treatment for mental illness by either requiring higher co-payments, allowing fewer doctor visits or requiring larger deductibles, Shays said. The result is an estimated $70 billion annually in health care costs of untreated mental illness.
"By requiring insurers who cover mental illness to do so at parity with physical illnesses, we will knock down a tremendous barrier to getting the assistance these individuals require," Shays said. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-3, issued a press release Thursday in support of the House bill.
"Whether you are suffering from mental illness, a physical disorder or severe illness, you should have the same coverage. All too often this is not the case and this legislation is designed to end discrimination against patients seeking treatment for mental illnesses," she said.
The Bush administration issued a policy statement Wednesday saying it supports the mental health parity legislation that passed the Senate and expressed concerns with the House version.
The Bush Administration claimed that the House bill would have "a negative effect on the accessibility and affordability of employer-provided health benefits" because it expands benefits and remedies beyond what is included in the Senate bill.
It also opposed the methods the House used to offset an estimated $3 billion in annual costs that the federal government would incur because of the legislation, including an increase in the Medicaid drug rebate.