State laws mandating or regulating mental health benefits
Since the health law established a comprehensive set of “essential health benefits” that individual and small group plans must cover (unless they existed prior to passage of the law in 2010), it was hoped that mandates would no longer be much in demand, says Sabrina Corlette, project director at Georgetown University’s Center On Health Insurance Reforms.Mandates are “not the most rational way to build a benefit package,” says Corlette. Such legislation can be enacted at the federal or state level and categorized as: The first official MH/SA insurance parity action occurred in 1961 through an executive order requiring the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program to cover psychiatric illnesses at a level equivalent to general medical care. Mental health benefits legislation (MHBL) involves changing regulations for MH insurance coverage to improve financial protection (i.e., decrease financial burden) and to increase access to, and use of, MH services including substance abuse (SA) services.We suggest upgrading your browser to the latest version of your favorite Internet browser.A: The best place to find out whether you have coverage for mental health conditions, or drug or alcohol use disorders is to read your certificate of coverage (referred to as a “summary,” “summary plan description,” or a “cert book”).Skip Navigation Please Note: You are viewing the non-styled version of Ohio Department of Insurance.Either your browser does not support Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) or it is disabled.
The Mental Health America calls on federal and state government to ensure, as a matter of law, that public and private health plans afford people access to needed behavioral health care and treatment on the same basis. However, the MHPAEA retained exemptions for employers with ≤50 employees or demonstrating a 2% cost increase annually as a result of the legislation. Thus, the legislation had little impact, although it served as a catalyst for subsequent MHBL, particularly at the state level.However, as will be outlined in this toolkit, there are still gaps in mental health and substance abuse parity and the principles of the policy statement are still relevant.
On a practical note, there are citations in the policy paper that are that continue to be relevant and valuable in making the argument for full parity.For decades, states have set rules for health coverage through mandates, laws that require insurers to cover specific types of medical care or services.