And you wonder why health insurance is so expensive
Posted by BrianWASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bill that would require health insurers to cover more of the costs of treating mental health conditions moved forward in Congress on Wednesday with wide backing from employers and insurers.
The Mental Health Parity Act of 2007 cleared the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and now goes to the full Senate for a vote.
“The bill requires health insurance plans that offer mental health coverage to provide that coverage on par with financial and treatment coverage offered for other physical illnesses like heart disease, diabetes or asthma,” Republican New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici’s office said in a statement.
When insurance companies are forced by the government to cover this and that we are the ones who pay for it through higher premiums. You and I, as consumers, might not want to pay for mental health coverage, but the government gives us no option. The politicians who complain about the high cost of health care need to look in the mirror.
Related content:
February 18th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
When I read this post, the random quote at the top was thus:
While this about sums up my thoughts on the post, let me just say that for far too long this country — through both its laws and its collective social attitude — has treated mental illness as something of a pariah.
The bill would not force insurance companies to pay for mental health at a higher rate than other illnesses or to treat mental health at all. It would merely place the treatment of mental health on the same footing as similar medical diseases.
How can anyone, lest they be ignorant of mental illness, argue that insurance coverage should not be equal across reasonably accepted medical standards?
February 18th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Sam, you completely missed the point of my post.
The point of my post wasn’t to imply that mental health is some imaginary concept. I started to write as much, but I thought the brevity of my post and lack of direct ridicule of mental health treatment would preclude responses such as yours.
My point was that governments, on a state and federal level, have created a patchwork of regulations for the insurance industry. Sure, their intentions are altruistic, but the end result is that so many things are mandatory that consumers don’t have any low cost options. That is one of the causes of high health insurance premiums.
I am a supporter of consumer driven health reform rather than government mandated health “reform.” The fact that the government was requiring mental health coverage in this particular case is tangential to my point.
February 18th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I see what you are saying, but I continue to disagree.
As I understand it, this act does not in any way mandate that an insurance company provide mental health coverage. It says if a company’s policy does provide mental health coverage that said coverage should be provided at the same level provided for other like diseases.
You are looking at this as a government-sanctioned health care that will increase costs. It’s not that. It is the government doing its job and ensuring equality in an area of health care that has long been grossly overlooked.
As a side not, one adverse affect of this bill, and something that should signal caution before Congress proceeds, is that it could lead some insurance companies to not cover mental health because of what will be an increase in coverage by some.
In the end, mental health advocates seek equality, and this bill provides another step in that direction. If insurance companies start pulling mental health coverage, then that will be another fight.
February 18th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Point taken, Sam. You are astute to note the potential side effect of the requirement.
I still remain leery of the government “requiring” private (by private I mean non-government, not privately owned) companies to offer coverage at a certain level for various maladies. Like I said, their intentions are altruistic, but the end result is either higher cost or (as you pointed out) potentially less coverage availability. What can I say; I’m a free market disciple.