[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 3]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 3873]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               THE MENTAL HEALTH EQUITABLE TREATMENT ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. PATRICK J. KENNEDY

                            of rhode island

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 20, 2002

  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here 
today celebrating introduction of the Mental Health Equitable Treatment 
Act with my good friend from New Jersey, Mrs. Roukema. Too many 
Americans have been waiting too long for equal access to the health 
care they need. I hope by introducing this compromise mental health 
parity bill we can make it happen this year.
  I could give you statistics about the prevalence of mental illnesses 
and cost of insurance discrimination, but the bottom line is that 
parity is about people's lives. Tracy Mixson of Asheville, North 
Carolina watched the downward spiral of her friend, Jeff. He exhausted 
his health insurance and ran out of medication. He tried to see another 
doctor, but couldn't afford the costs and had to stop going. In her 
words, ``I watched him suffer for a little while, and then it was over. 
He ended his life.''
  This issue is not complicated. Our bill is a civil rights bill. It 
recognizes that prejudice distorts the markets and requires 
intervention. It reflects the best values on which this country was 
built, principles of inclusion and opportunity for all Americans.
  Discrimination in any form is a stain on the equality that makes this 
nation great. And make no mistake, discrimination is at the heart of 
this issue. The question for Congress to decide is whether we continue 
to indulge our old, deep-seated prejudices against the mentally ill or 
whether policy catches up with science.
  We will hear that parity is too expensive. I am confident that nobody 
in this Congress would countenance rationing health care for cancer or 
asthma. Like mental illnesses, these are potentially fatal, frequently 
treatable, chronic diseases. Unlike cancer and asthma patients, 
however, most Americans suffering from mental illnesses find that their 
health plans hinder access to necessary medical treatment.
  If we would not tell asthma or cancer patients that their coverage is 
too expensive, why would we say that to the mentally ill? Essentially, 
we are asking our constituents with mental illness to sacrifice 
potentially life-saving treatment in order to keep health care costs 
down for everybody else. The unfairness of that request is manifest.
  We don't ask cancer patients to bear that burden. We don't ask any 
other patients to bear that burden. And that's why this debate is not 
about cost. It's about prejudice.
  We will hear that if we pass parity, mental health care will be 
abused. This argument is a red herring. It is an invocation of the 
stereotypes that good people rely on to justify looking the other way 
in the face of injustice. We should not fall for it.
  We have a strong science base and the authority of the Surgeon 
General, NIH, AMA, and Nobel Laureates saying mental illnesses are 
diseases on par with physical ailments. We have experience in dozens of 
states and the federal employees' health program showing that parity 
results in a more efficient use of mental health resources.
  So I ask you, as you consider the merits of this bill, don't let the 
issue get muddied. I believe the choice is simple. On the one hand is 
the status quo. It's the denial of medically necessary care because of 
stereotypes and prejudice. It's suicide and lost jobs and broken lives. 
It's stories like that of Molly Close from Louisville, Kentucky, who 
wrote:

       In 1998 1 was hospitalized 3 times for depression with 
     suicidal intent. Each hospitalization was terminated, not 
     because my doctor felt I was ready to leave, but because my 
     insurance company refused to pay for further treatment. When 
     I left the hospital the last time, I was still severely 
     depressed. I was not healthy enough to return to my teaching 
     career of 24 years. Since I had exhausted all my leave days, 
     I was forced to resign my job. . . .

  It is time to end the discrimination that the Molly Closes of this 
country face.
  Our earlier parity bill, H.R. 162, has 203 cosponsors. We have heard 
the concerns of employers about cost and the need for flexibility and 
that's why we are here today introducing this compromise bill. This new 
legislation makes a major concession in dropping substance abuse. It 
contains explicit guarantees that plans can manage benefits. It 
protects the rights of health plans to set medical necessity criteria. 
A majority of the House supported these parity provisions last year 
during the appropriations process and I'm hopeful that we will have a 
chance to see whether a majority will support it on the Floor this 
year.
  Let's give the 54 million Americans with mental disorders full access 
to the American Dream. This bill is the right thing for them and the 
right thing for our nation. I look forward to working with my friends 
on both sides of the aisle to give all Americans the health care they 
need and deserve.

                          ____________________