HCS HB 593 -- INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR MENTAL HEALTH OR CHEMICAL
DEPENDENCY SERVICES

SPONSOR:  Harlan (Riback Wilson, 25)

COMMITTEE ACTION:  Voted "do pass" by the Committee on Critical
Issues, Consumer Protection and Housing by a vote of 16 to 1.

This substitute repeals the Mental Health and Chemical
Dependency Insurance Act of 1999 and replaces it with provisions
requiring health insurers to provide coverage for mental health
and chemical dependency in the same manner as other medical
services.  Alcohol and other drug abuse services will be covered
for at least 30 days total inpatient treatment and at least 20
total visits for outpatient treatment during each year of
coverage.

FISCAL NOTE:  Estimated Net Cost to General Revenue Fund of
Unknown in FY 2002, FY 2003, and FY 2004.  Expected to exceed
$100,000 annually.  Estimated Income to Insurance Dedicated Fund
of $10,000 in FY 2002, and $0 in FY 2003 and FY 2004.  Estimated
Net Cost to Conservation Fund of Unknown in FY 2002, FY 2003,
and FY 2004.

PROPONENTS:  Supporters say that the bill represents fairness by
providing health insurance parity for mental illness and
chemical dependency.  Just as with physical illness, early
intervention is crucial in treating mental illness and chemical
dependency and reduces costs by avoiding hospitalization or
other expensive treatments that may be required for advanced
illness.  With treatment, persons with mental illness and
chemical dependency can remain productive members of society.

Testifying for the bill were Representative Riback Wilson (25);
University of Missouri Vice Chancellor of Health Affairs;
Missouri State Medical Association; NAMI of Missouri; Missouri
Chapter of National Association of Social Workers; Eastern
Missouri Psychiatry; Missouri Jewish Federation; Missouri
Coalition of Community Mental Health Centers; Missouri Recovery
Network; ACT Missouri; and Mental Health Association of St.
Louis.

OPPONENTS:  Those who oppose the bill say that the cost of
increased utilization of services is charged to policyholders,
and many policyholders complain that costs continue to
increase.  Opponents also object to a mandate to provide this
coverage, despite the fact that one of the opponents currently
offers this coverage.

Testifying against the bill were Blue Cross/Blue Shield of
Missouri; United Health Care; and Missouri Association of Health
Plans.

Donna Schlosser, Legislative Analyst

Missouri House of Representatives
Last Updated November 26, 2001 at 11:44 am