Kansas Lawmakers Consider Mental Health Parity Legislation

Kansas lawmakers are meeting this week to discuss two versions (SB 19 and HB 2033) of a mental health parity bill, the AP/Topeka Capital-Journal reports. Currently, insurance policies issued in Kansas must include coverage for the first $100 of mental illness treatment, 80% of the next $100 and 50% of the remaining amount, with the total capped at $1,840 per year. Coverage over a beneficiary's lifetime is capped at $7,500. Mandated coverage now is limited to 30 days of hospitalization for mental health problems. The House bill would require insurers to include mental health coverage, but allows employers to choose whether to purchase such policies for their employees. The Senate had rejected a similar provision, but the AP/Capital-Journal reports that the chamber might "be willing to accept it as a compromise." The House bill also calls for a study of how a requirement that state employees' health plans include mental health coverage has affected the state's costs. House Insurance Committee Chair Bob Tomlinson (R) raised concern that a mental health parity bill would increase insurance costs and thus "leave some Kansans uninsured and force small companies out of business" (Hull, AP/Topeka Capital-Journal, 4/1).

Approve Parity Changes, Lawmaker Says
"Unfortunately, too many health insurance plans fail to provide coverage that ensures access to adequate treatment for mental illness," Kansas state Rep. Dale Swenson (R) writes in an op-ed for the Wichita Eagle. He calls the current Kansas law requiring mental health coverage "out of date," adding that the law "has not kept pace with increases in health care costs or the emphasis on less costly, and often more appropriate, outpatient care." He counters opponents' charges that mental health parity would significantly increase costs, noting that the cost increases are a "manageable" 1% to 1.5%. He adds that those increases are "offset by lower disability costs, less absenteeism and higher productivity," asking, "What about the costs of not passing mental health parity?" He concludes that parity would help people who "need access to affordable treatment," adding, "No one should lose a friend because treatment was unavailable" (Swenson, Wichita Eagle, 4/4).