Mental Parity Bill In Congress Raises Concern Of State Regulators

The NAIC has written to both committees about the Senate bill, noting that it would completely preempt all state protections in such areas as parity in financial requirements, i.e. coverage limits, co-pays, deductions exemptions in parity requirements due to increase costs, Dilweg said.

"Wisconsin and other states are struggling to predict how the preemption language might impact current parity laws," he said. "Short of litigation in federal court, it is unclear who decides if the state law differs from the federal law and what a state's options are if the state disagrees with that decision."

He said there are 46 states with laws requiring some level of mental health coverage and 27 states have full parity laws, requiring insurers to provide the same level of mental health benefits as medical and surgical benefits.

At the same time, business interests voiced support for the Senate bill. Jon Breyfogle, executive principal with Groom Law Group, Washington, D.C., testified on behalf of the American Benefits Council.

He told the panel that, "Because of the importance Council members place on all employee health benefits, we have repeatedly urged Congress not to expand the current federal parity requirements in a way that would add to plan costs or increase the complexity of plan administration."

He called the Senate bill a "balanced legislative approach that has gained the support of mental health parity proponents as well as organizations representing employers and insurers.

Mr. Breyfogle said, "The Senate bill is unique."

He added, "We hope this good faith effort sends an important message that employers will support legislation where their priority concerns are addressed in a thoughtful manner and with careful attention to details."

He said the Senate bill allows employers the flexibility to design plans; makes clear that medical management of these important benefits may not be prohibited; and ensures uniformity between federal and state parity requirements while maintaining states' current authority to regulate insurance.

"Unfortunately, The Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act (H.R. 1424) does not address the issues of key concern to employers in the same balanced fashion as the Senate bill," Breyfogle said.