The Wellstone-Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addictions Law passed Congress in 2008. Some people considered this as equal to a civil rights victory for the mentally ill. But implementation issues needed clarification. Much talk exists that the ultimate interpretations will be made in the courts as patients and their advocates challenge insurance companies about the ‘true intent’ of the law. The initial grassroots regulations of how to implement parity comes from the US Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury (see below link).
In my mind — did the bill writers, supporters, and debaters not consult with insurance minded people to anticipate these issues? Or perhaps it was intentional, to either delay the implementation or to force these issues into the courts.
These rules will be effective April 5, 2010 and generally apply to group health plans and group health insurance issuers for plan years beginning on or after July 1, 2010.
The below DOL link is important to at least review. Also, the DSM-5 draft is available for review and comment at http://www.dsm5.org/ from February 10 to April 20, 2010.
Below is the 2-2-2010 link of these regulations that just appeared. Here are the four major issues:
1. Defining what is a medical versus a psychiatric disorder. If insurers call an entity a medical disorder, it will be exempt from parity coverage. Autism and PDD are widely viewed as medical, not psychiatric disorders. If schizophrenia only needed medications to treat, then it would be a medical disorder. But it requires a range of psychosocial interventions as well. However, diabetes also requires a range of psychosocial interventions as well, but it is considered a medical disorder. Clearly this labeling process has political and scientific elements, and it remains copiously unresolved and unfinished. We will see what the DSM-V does to this progression.
2. Insurers are exploring if there can be separate deductibles for mental health & substance abuse versus general medical disorders. Many argue the deductibles should be combined as in Medicare. The 1996 parity law allowed for separate lifetime benefit benefits. Separate deductibles are considered discriminatory. The below rules clarify that separate deductables are not allowed.
3. Management – related to complicated needs for treatment authorizations. The law seems to suggest that management/authorizations can be more stringent than for medical/surgical benefits. Fail first requirements are all possible – that failure of less costly treatments may be needed before referral to more costly ones (does this mean failed antidepressant use by an internist before referral to a mental health provider?) Having a parity level benefit on paper and having clinical access to that benefit are two different events.
4. Scope of coverage – if a plan allows for treatment of a particular mental health disorder, what limits can they impose on levels or types of care. This is called ‘treatment limitations.” The law is not specific enough. Insurance companies cover illnesses based on their choice of coverages, and then on documented evidence of a necessity to provide coverage. In mental health, absolute and immovable evidence-based treatments do not yet exist, so will treatment be limited to medications, CBT, ECT, but not marital or analytic therapy? Or will 4, or 8 or 12 psychotherapy sessions be allowed. It’s known that insurance companies fear endless verbal psychotherapy, but all mental health professionals know that prolonged verbal and cognitive therapy is, at times, needed. A suggestion exists that mental health providers may choose a primary diagnosis that is covered, and then add a host of secondary diagnoses – this is not a new practice to medicine. Also, as patients learn more about their parity benefits, more and more may seek treatment. That will increase costs at some levels, but it will also be better for the community as more mental illness is treated, people will miss fewer work days, hopefully fewer people will have associated legal problems, etc.
This is to the latest set of proposed government rules:
http://www.dol.gov/federalregister/HtmlDisplay.aspx?DocId=23511&AgencyId=8&DocumentType=2