Mental Health Parity Act of 2007
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today is a landmark day in our nation's struggle to achieve access to mental health services for all Americans. The Mental Health Parity Act of 2007 reflects a major agreement by the mental health community, business leaders, and the insurance industry to guarantee that persons with mental health needs receive fair and equitable health insurance. Its passage will mean dramatic new help for 113 million Americans who today are without mental health care and treatment.
Access to such care and treatment is one of the most important and 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 learns of their condition. Sadly, in America today, patients with biochemical problems in their livers receive better care and greater compassion than patients with biochemical problems in their brains.
This bill will help end such unacceptable discrimination. As we have seen in the recent bipartisan CHIP legislation, 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, unfulfilled potential and broken lives.
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 a difficult 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.
Eleven years ago, a bipartisan majority in Congress approved the original 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. This bill takes the actions needed to end the long-standing discrimination against persons with mental illness.
Over the years we have heard compelling testimony from experts, activists, and patients about the need to equalize coverage of physical and mental illnesses. Some of the most forceful 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 very little for her physical disorder. Lisa is typical of millions of Americans for whom the burden of mental illness is compounded by the burden of unfair discrimination.
No Americans should be denied equal treatment for an illness because it involves the brain instead of the heart, the lungs, or other parts of their body. 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.
Study after study has shown that parity makes good financial sense. Mental illness 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.
But equal treatment of those affected by mental illness is not just an insurance issue. It is a civil rights issue. At its heart, mental health parity is a question of simple justice.
Today is a turning point. We are finally moving toward ending this shameful form of discrimination in our society--discrimination against persons with mental illness. This bill is a true commitment by the insurance industry, business industry and the mental health community to bring fairness and dignity to the millions of Americans who have been second class patients for too long.
The 1996 act was an important step towards ending health insurance discrimination against mental illness. This bill takes another large step to close the loopholes that remain.
We would not be here without the strong commitment and skillful determination of the late Senator Paul Wellstone and Senator Pete Domenici. They deserve immense credit for their bipartisan leadership on mental health parity.
I also commend the staff, both Democrat and Republican, who worked so long and hard on this legislation. I particularly thank Carolyn Gluck of Senator Reid's office and all the Democratic staff who worked in recent weeks to help us produce the bill we have today.
I also commend Ed Hild of Senator Domenici's staff and Andrew Patzman of Senator Enzi's staff for the many hours they spent with my staff to negotiate the bill.
On my staff, I especially commend several who worked so long and hard and well on this legislation--Michael Myers, Carmel Martin, Kelsey Phipps, Daniel Dawes, Jennie Fay, Ches Garrison, and above all Connie Garner, whose passion, counsel and commitment I value so highly on this and many other issues. Without her dedicated guidance, we would not be at this important threshold today.
My hope is that as we improve access to mental health services for all Americans, we will also help end the stigma and discrimination against those with mental illness. Mental illnesses are treatable and curable, and it is high time to bring relief to those who suffer from them.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his tremendous leadership on this bill. He has fought for this legislation for many years, and I am grateful for his commitment to getting this bill passed. This legislation represents the culmination of more than a year's negotiations involving lawmakers, mental health, insurance and business organizations to craft compromise legislation. During the markup of the bill last February, my colleague Senator DODD raised very important issues regarding the effects of the preemption language in the legislation. Since then, he was joined by several other Senators, attorneys general, and State insurance commissioners who have voiced concerns about unintended consequences of the bill. It was never the intent of the bill to harm or weaken State insurance laws but in response to concerns raised by several of my colleagues and insurance experts, the language pertaining to preemption was stricken from the legislation.
Mr. DODD. I thank the chairman of the HELP Committee and the distinguished senior Senator from New Mexico and congratulate them on passage of S. 558, the Mental Health Parity Act. They and their staff have worked long hours to craft this compromise bill, and I congratulate them on this victory for individuals with mental illness throughout the country. Supporters of mental health parity, old and new, should commend the leadership of Senators Domenici and Kennedy for their years of commitment and struggle to pass Federal mental health parity legislation.
I was an original cosponsor of the original mental health parity bill in 1996, along with Senator Domenici and the late Senator Wellstone, and have been a strong supporter of efforts to strengthen that bill since it was signed into law. But, as my colleagues may know, the legislation the HELP Committee marked up last February which is now before the Senate is different from what our late colleague Paul championed for so many years. The legislation our committee marked up contained preemption language which was broader in scope than what was in Federal mental health parity bills in the past. For that reason, I filed amendments during that markup to address preemption in a way I believed would have taken a major step toward protecting State insurance laws and ensuring that we do no harm to State-based consumer protections through Federal mental health parity. At that markup, I voiced concerns about the impact the bill would have on States like Connecticut who have strong mental health parity laws, strong consumer protection laws, and strong benefit mandate laws.
As a result of my continued concerns about the impact this bill would have on the residents of my State, I withheld cosponsorship of the legislation until the issues surrounding preemption could be resolved. I am pleased to say that because of the hard work and dedication of Members on both sides of the aisle, my concerns have been addressed and I can now support the legislation.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the senior Senator from Connecticut and appreciate his leadership on this issue. He raised a number of important issues during the consideration of this bill. I believe we have addressed those concerns in the legislation and I am pleased that he is now a strong supporter of the legislation.
Mr. DODD. The bill passing the Senate today relies on the existing preemption of State law standard currently in ERISA and the Public Health Service Act, preserving States laws relating to health insurance issuers. In many States, such issuers contract out the key insurance function of reviewing medical claims by their insurers to utilization review or medical management companies, which are licensed and regulated by the States. In fact, the legislation written by the Senator from Massachusetts, called HIPAA, was an innovative approach to Federal health care reform that has worked so well in setting a minimum standard of protections while allowing stronger State-based consumer protections. Is it the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts' belief that S. 558 preserves the States' ability to regulate such companies?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, nothing in this bill affects any State law or State regulation of any company or issuer who performs utilization review or other medical management services. The changes made to the preemption section of S. 558 mean that the current HIPAA standard would apply to this legislation, just like it applies to existing law passed in 1996. By using existing preemption language, we mean only the narrowest preemption of State laws. A minimum standard of Federal protection allows States to provide additional protection for their citizens. State laws designed to regulate medical management or utilization review to protect plan participants are not preempted under the bill because they do not ``prevent the application'' of the substantive provisions of this bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT