[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 32 (Thursday, February 27, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E319-E320]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     INTRODUCTION OF THE PAUL D. WELLSTONE MENTAL HEALTH PARITY ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 27, 2003

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues, Representatives 
Patrick Kennedy, Jim Ramstad and many others, to introduce the Paul D. 
Wellstone Mental Health Parity Act (MHPA) in the House. This bill, well 
named in memory of a dearly missed Congressional colleague and mental 
health advocate, ends a major barrier to mental health care by 
providing full parity in the health insurance coverage of mental 
illness with physical illness. It is time to heed the call of the 54 
million Americans who suffer with the effects of mental illness every 
day of their lives and change this pernicious form of discrimination.
  While the MHPA has received substantial bipartisan support in 
Congress and is supported in concept by the current administration, 
there remains a chorus of naysayers; primarily business lobbyists and 
insurance industry representatives. This chorus chants that this bill 
removes substantial flexibility by mandating the type of health 
benefits to offer. Yet examination of the facts refutes their 
contention. The bill does not require employers to

[[Page E320]]

offer mental health coverage or cover specific mental health services, 
it excludes parity for substance abuse and out-of-network services, and 
businesses with less than 50 employees are exempt. Flexibility is not 
impaired.
  The chorus of naysayers chants that this legislation would 
significantly raise health benefit costs and make these benefits too 
expensive for employers to offer. Again, examination of the facts 
refutes their contention. A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 
projection estimated that passage of this bill would increase group 
health plan premiums by an average of 0.9 percent. Similarly, a 
PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis of the bill projected a 1 percent 
increase in costs or an average of $1.32 per month per plan enrollee. 
These projections are consistent with the actual findings in states 
that already provide for full mental health parity by law and the 
experience of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program that 
instituted parity for both mental health and substance abuse benefits 
in 2001. This approximate 1 percent increase is a small price to pay to 
increase mental health access and end discriminatory mental health 
insurance coverage practices. Furthermore, this increase in costs does 
not take into account the experience of several large employers (e.g. 
Delta Airlines) that found that increased access to mental health 
benefits led to decreases in other areas of health care costs and 
decreased employee absence.
  In exasperation, the naysayers then chant that this bill covers an 
excessively broad range of psychiatric conditions which will open the 
door to the dubious complaints of the ``worried well'' and lead to over 
utilization and excessive cost. These contentions deny the reality that 
the bill requires parity only for those services that are ``medically 
necessary'' which is defined by the plan or issuer's criteria. In fact, 
symptoms that do not cause ``clinically significant impairment or 
distress'' will not be covered.
  Thus, in retrospect, the concerns of this chorus are not supported by 
the data. Then, what can be the origin of this resistance to mental 
health parity?
  A thousand years ago, people displaying symptoms of mental illness 
were stoned or burned at the stakes. The stigma attached to the 
mentally ill continues today in a more latent, but no less malicious 
form. It manifests itself by the employer who finds reasons not to hire 
or the apartment owner who is less likely to lease to the mentally ill. 
And, I believe it is manifesting itself in this excessive opposition to 
the efforts of the mentally ill to obtain treatment.
  It is time to overcome the stigma associated with mental illness and 
put an end to this form of discrimination. It is time for the 
Administration to take an active role in supporting this bill that 
facilitates access to mental health services for those in need. It is 
time for Congress to enact the Paul D. Wellstone Mental Health Parity 
Act. I am pleased to join with my colleagues to again support this long 
overdue improvement in our health care system. I urge its speedy 
passage.

                          ____________________