BILL ANALYSIS AB 88 Page 1 Date of Hearing: March 24, 1999 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Carole Migden, Chairwoman AB 88 (Thomson) - As Amended: 2/24/99 Policy Committee: HealthVote:10 - 3 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:YesReimbursable: No SUMMARY : This bill requires health insurers to provide coverage for severe mental illnesses and for the serious emotional disturbances of a child. Specifically, the bill requires mental illness benefits to include outpatient and hospital services, and prescription drugs if a plan otherwise covers prescription drugs. In addition, the bill requires terms for maximum lifetime benefits, co-payments and deductibles to be applied equally to all benefits under a plan contract or insurance policy. The bill exempts health plans covering Medi-Cal beneficiaries and other specialized health plans, such as Medicare supplement policies. The bill does not prohibit the use of case management, managed care, or utilization review in the provision of mental health coverage. FISCAL EFFECT : 1)The bill's coverage requirements will increase the cost of health insurance premiums to employers and individuals. As a purchaser of health insurance for state employees, a portion of these costs will accrue to the state. The extent of these costs will be determined through negotiations with individual plans. Although there are various estimates on the likely cost of achieving full mental health parity (discussed below), information provided by the Public Employees Retirement System indicates a one-half of one-percent increase would result in annual state costs of $1.6 million. 2)A 1998 report by the US Department of Health and Human Services estimates full mental health insurance parity would AB 88 Page 2 increase managed care plan premiums by less than one percent, including for substance abuse coverage. The report estimates an average 3.6 percent increase would result across all types of insurance, including fee-for-service coverage . Similarly, the National Advisory mental Health Council reviewed the effect of parity laws on premiums in five states. The council concluded that in states where managed care is prevalent, such as in California, full mental health parity would result in premium increases of less than one percent. In contrast to these estimates, a 1996 study by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected premium increases of between three and four percent, depending on whether the coverage includes substance abuse treatment. However, the CBO estimate was disputed by a subsequent RAND Corporation study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. RAND concluded the CBO estimates "overestimate the cost effects of parity legislation" because they did not distinguish between managed care and fee-for-service based insurance. COMMENTS : 1)Purpose of the Bill . This bill is intended to prohibit discrimination against people with biologically-based mental illnesses, and require equitable mental health coverage among all health insurers to prevent risk selection ("cherry picking") by insurers. The author stresses that mental illness is treatable in a cost-effective manner and that the failure of the health care system to provide treatment for mental illness is costly both to mentally ill individuals and society, including state and local governments. 2)Related Legislation . SB 468 (Polanco) requires equitable coverage for all mental disorders and illnesses, and serious emotional disturbances of a child. It is before the Senate Insurance Committee. 3)Federal Law . The federal Mental Health Parity Act, effective last year, prohibits health plans from setting annual or lifetime dollar limits on an enrollee's mental health benefits that are lower than such limits on other medical care. The federal requirement does not apply to insurance purchased by employers with fewer than 50 employees. AB 88 Page 3 4)Legislation In Other States . At least 19 states have laws requiring equitable coverage for mental illnesses. These benefits range from covering all mental illnesses, including for substance abuse, to only a selected number of severe or biologically based illnesses. This bill requires equitable coverage for the more serious mental illnesses. 5)Support Arguments . The California Alliance for the Mentally Ill (CAMI), the sponsor contends that this bill would benefit employers by improving worker productivity, reducing homelessness, and lowering criminal justice system costs. CAMI also believes that increased private coverage will reduce costs for the state and counties. The California Psychiatric Association contends that nearly all health plans discriminate against patients with genetic biological brain disorders such as schizophrenia, depression and manic depression by imposing higher co-payments, and covering fewer inpatient days and doctor visits. The Association argues these practices stem from earlier beliefs that serious mental illnesses are not medical problems. The Association notes, however, that an abundance of research, including brain scans, demonstrate clear differences between the brains of healthy individuals and those of patients with serious mental illnesses. The California Psychological Association supports this bill "in concept," but argues the bill should not be limited only to more serious forms of mental illnesses. The Association is sponsoring SB 468 (Polanco) to require coverage for all forms of mental illness. 6)Opposition Arguments . The California Association of Health Plans (CAHP) is opposed to this bill unless amended. CAHP urges an exclusion from the bill's coverage requirement for insurance purchased by individuals and small employers because they are most adversely affected by premium cost increases. CAHP cites a Barents Group study estimating that a 1 percent increase in the cost of health insurance results in 40,000 Californians losing coverage. CAHP member plans estimate that this bill would increase the cost of average of 1.5 to 6.5 percent, depending upon the type of plan. The California Network of Mental Health Clients is opposed to AB 88 Page 4 bill unless it is amended to exclude coverage of involuntary treatment. The Network argues that although the aim of this bill is to reduce discrimination, involuntary treatment in health care coverage for persons with psychiatric disabilities enhances discrimination. The Citizens Commission on Human Rights, established by the Church of Scientology, argues this bill will mandate dubious science, among other objections. The Scientologists believe the bill may promote over-drugging of children, and question the existence of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). In addition, the group argues that mental health coverage is not cost-effective because there are difficulties in diagnosis, disputes over what constitutes effective treatment, and that results are not measured. Analysis Prepared by : Bill Wehrle / APPR. / (916) 319-2081