Plans can no longer charge higher copays or limit the number of visits for behavioral or mental health benefits, thanks to a new law
That means no limits on number of doctor visits and no more copays for psychological conditions that are higher than those for physical ailments. The list of covered conditions was extended to include depression, autism, eating disorders and alcohol and drug abuse-but not sleep disorders, caffeine intoxication or other "fringe" disorders listed in a manual issued by the American Psychiatric Assn. and backed by patient advocates.
The law was hailed as a health policy milestone that reflects the declining stigma against mental illness and scientific advances in treatment. Although mental health advocates did not get the coverage mandates originally demanded, they acknowledged the importance of the policy in equalizing treatment of the mentally ill.
INSURERS, EMPLOYERS SIGN ON
After years of opposition to more costly mental health mandate proposals, insurers backed this bill as a reasonable compromise. Aetna Chairman Ronald Williams praised the law, saying it was likely to improve health outcomes "through integrated medical and behavioral benefits and services."
An important feature for insurers is continued leeway to use benefit management strategies in the mental health area, but with more transparency on coverage decisions and denials. Under the law, which takes effect in 2010, insurers that seek to deny payment for care on the grounds that it is not "medically necessary" or "clinically appropriate" must disclose their criteria for such decisions related to claims for mental health services.
Ultimately, insurers are expected to integrate mental healthcare with medical and surgical benefits, based on expanded networks of mental health providers. Already the legislation is boosting interest in the growing number of firms providing specialized mental health benefits to employers and health plans.
Key to gaining employer support for the legislation is an exemption for companies with 50 or fewer employees from the parity requirement. Employers also acknowledge growing evidence that treatment of mental health disorders can improve productivity.
At the same time, Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, warned that over time, requirements such as mental health parity may erode the ability of employers to provide coverage for workers and their dependents. She advised lawmakers to realize that support for this legislation should not be regarded as opening the door to a "one-size-fits-all" approach to health reform.
Despite broad enthusiasm for mental health parity, it remains to be seen if the new requirements lead to a reduction in employer health benefits or any narrowing in the range of products offered by insurers.
Jill Wechsler, a veteran reporter, has been covering Capitol Hill since 1994.
Upended: Can PBM Transparency Succeed?
March 6th 2024Simmering tensions in the pharmacy benefit management (PBM) industry have turned into fault lines. The PBMs challenging the "big three" have formed a trade association. Purchaser coalitions want change. The head of the industry's trade group says inherent marketplace friction has spilled over into political friction.
Read More
In this episode of the "Meet the Board" podcast series, Briana Contreras, Managed Healthcare Executive editor, speaks with Ateev Mehrotra, a member of the MHE editorial advisory board and a professor of healthcare policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School. Mehtrotra is also a hospitalist at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. In the discussion, Contreras gets to know Mehrotra more on a personal level and picks his brain on some of his research interests including telehealth, alternative payment models and price transparency.
Listen
Inflation Reduction Act: Reforms to Patient Cost-Sharing
September 18th 2023Lower out-of-pocket costs for patients might put upward pressure on drug prices, as manufacturers face less price sensitivity, note Matthew Majewski and Rhett Johnson of Charles River Associates. But they also note that upward pressure on price is likely to be limited to the inflation rate as any additional price increase would need to be paid back to CMS in the form of inflation rebates.
Read More
Spending climbed by 2.7% in 2021. In 2020, it soared by 10.3%, fueled by federal government spending in response to the pandemic. The blizzard of calculations of 2021 healthcare spending by CMS’ actuaries also provides further evidence that utilization of healthcare services bounced back in 2021.
Read More