BILL ANALYSIS SENATE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE ANALYSIS Senator Martha M. Escutia, Chair BILL NO: AB 88 A AUTHOR: Thomson B AMENDED: February 24, 1999 HEARING DATE: June 30, 1999 8 FISCAL: Insurance/Appropriations 8 CONSULTANT: McCarthy SUBJECT Health care coverage: mental illness SUMMARY Requires a health care service plan (health plan) contract or disability insurance policy to provide coverage for severe mental illnesses, and for the serious emotional disturbances of a child. ABSTRACT Current Law: Requires a health plan contract or disability insurance policy covering hospital, medical or surgical services to cover the diagnosis and treatment of specified physical conditions. This bill: 1.Requires every health plan or disability insurer contract issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2000, that provides hospital, medical, or surgical coverage, to provide coverage for diagnosis and medically necessary treatment of "severe mental illnesses" and for the "serious emotional disturbances" of a child. Continued--- STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 88 (Thomson) Page 2 2.Defines "severe mental illnesses" as including: a) Schizophrenia; b) Schizoaffective disorder; c) Bipolar disorder (manic depressive disorder); d) Major depressive disorders; e) Panic disorder; f) Obsessive-compulsive disorder; g) Pervasive developmental disorder or autism; h) Anorexia nervosa; and i) Bulimia nervosa. 3.Defines "serious emotional disturbances of a child" as one or more mental disorders, other than substance abuse or developmental disability, identified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4.4)Requires severe mental illness benefits to include outpatient and inpatient services, hospital services, and prescription drugs if a plan contract or insurance policy otherwise covers prescription drugs. 5.Requires terms for maximum lifetime benefits, copayments and deductibles to be applied equally to all benefits under a plan contract or insurance policy. 6.Exempts specialized health plan contracts and insurance policies, including Medicare supplement policies, and Medi-Cal contracts from the requirements of this bill. FISCAL IMPACT According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis, the Public Employees Retirement System indicates a one-half of 1% premium increase that could occur would result in annual state costs of $1.6 million. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION 1.The author's intent in proposing this bill is to prohibit discrimination against people with selected biologically-based mental illnesses, reduce scientifically unsound distinctions between mental and physical illnesses, and require more equitable mental health coverage among health plans and insurers to prevent adverse risk selection. 2.At least 19 states require equitable coverage for mental illnesses. Benefits range from all mental illnesses, plus chemical dependency, to covering only selected Continued--- STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 88 (Thomson) Page 3 severe illnesses. This bill requires equitable coverage for selected severe mental illnesses. 3.Mental health statistics -- According to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), over the course of a lifetime, approximately 20% of Americans will experience a mental disorder or illness. Among the most frequently experienced mental health disorders are anxiety and depression. Depression, for example, is estimated by the National Institute for Mental Health to affect 9.5% of the population each year; treatment is effective in 80% of cases. A Rand Corporation study estimated a loss of $12 billion in missed work days nationally each year due to depression. In recent years, research increasingly has demonstrated a biological basis for many mental disorders, often involving neurological abnormalities of the brain. If a biological basis for a mental disorder is established, the recommended treatment typically consists of prescription medications in addition to psychological counseling or therapy. 4.Managed care and mental health -- Under managed care, a trend of reduced coverage for mental health care has been observed. According to a report prepared for Congress by the National Advisory Mental Health Council, in 1981 58% of employees with any health insurance also had coverage for mental health inpatient care comparable to that for other illnesses. By 1993, only 16% of employees had such coverage. This has resulted in higher out-of-pocket expenses for employees for mental heath care than for other health care. For example, the report stated that an acute episode resulting in a week of inpatient care followed by weekly outpatient therapy would cost $3,892 out of pocket without mental health parity legislation, versus $866 under parity. According to the American Psychological Association, approximately one-half of health plans limit mental health treatment by: a) limiting the number of days of coverage to 20 to 60 days; b) limiting the number of outpatient mental health counseling or consultation visits to 20 to 30 sessions annually; Continued--- STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 88 (Thomson) Page 4 c) imposing lifetime expenditure caps (for example, limiting mental health expenditure to $50,000 but allowing $1 million caps for lifetime other health expenditures); d) excluding certain mental health conditions from coverage. 5.Purpose of parity legislation -- According to the above mentioned National Advisory Mental Health Council study, the purpose of parity legislation under debate in Congress and in a number of states is to address several goals: f) overcome discrimination against persons with mental illness "based on artificial and scientifically untenable distinctions between mental and physical disorders; g) prevent "adverse selection"; h) lessen out of pocket expenses for persons with mental illness; i) reduce disability through effective treatment; and j) increase the economic productivity and social contributions from persons with mental illness. 5.Costs of lack of coverage -- As with any non-covered health condition, out-of-pocket costs for treatment, including medications, can be a severe financial hardship for families. Also, as with any serious health condition, lack of insurance coverage can limit the ability of the affected individual to be regularly employed and support their families. For example, it was estimated that a number of persons receiving benefits under the CalWORKs program would require mental health services in preparation to becoming employed prior to the 5-year time limit (January 1, 2003 for most current recipients). Thus, for FY 1999-2000, over $50 million has been allocated for mental health services for CalWORKs recipients. The National Council study cites research indicating that for every dollar spent on treatment of mood disorders between $3 and $9 could be realized in net economic returns due to employee earnings; a one-to-one net economic return was reported for less common and more severe mental illnesses. 6.Public/private cost shift -- In general, lack of private health insurance coverage for mental illness shifts the Continued--- STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 88 (Thomson) Page 5 cost of treatment for some low income patients to the public sector, especially state and county government. Parity legislation is likely to result in an unknown amount of cost shift from the public to the private sector, potentially offsetting some of the cost increase to public employee benefit plans. 7.Federal law and report to Congress: Recent federal legislation, the Domenici-Wellstone parity amendment to the federal FY 1997 appropriations bill (H.R. 3666 /P.L. 104-204), requires group health care plans which contain some mental illness coverage must not impose more limits on mental health coverage than are imposed for other health conditions. However, that legislation did not require health plans to cover mental illness and applied only to plans serving 50 or more employees. Subsequent to the legislation, the federal Senate Appropriations Committee requested the National Advisory Mental Health Council to report on: (1) the cost of providing equitable coverage for persons with mental illness and (2) the National Institute of Mental Health's investigation of mental health coverage under managed care. The Council's initial report to Congress states that mental health parity, adopted in combination with managed care, is likely to result in lowered costs and lowered premiums or, at most, very modest cost increases within the first year of implementation. The report also notes that while parity legislation enhances access to mental health services, under managed care access can still be restricted if insurers utilize "behavioral health plans" and aggressive utilization reviews as "gatekeeping" functions. 8.Cost is a key issue -- Previous debates over legislation in Congress and in the legislature have prompted conflicting studies of the cost of providing mental health coverage. The federal study requested by Congress in 1997 found that most previous studies failed to account for the impact of managed care, which can impose cost controls when parity legislation is enacted. Supporters of mental health parity point to a recent Price Waterhouse study, commissioned by the California Continued--- STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 88 (Thomson) Page 6 Psychological Association and the American Psychological Association, that found the cost of a comprehensive mental health parity requirement (similar to the one included in SB 468/Polanco) would increase base medical plan costs by between 1% (for HMOs) and 3% (for Fee-For-Service plans). Considering the type of plans and likely employer responses, the Price Waterhouse actuarial analysis predicted an average, net employer contribution cost increase of 94 cents per member per month (an average of $3 per family). In addition, for small employers, defined as those with 5 employees or less, the study predicted an increase in cost of $84 per year. 9.The California Alliance for the Mentally Ill (CAMI), the sponsor, argues that this bill would benefit employers by improving worker productivity, reducing homelessness, and lowering criminal justice costs. The California Psychiatric Association (CPA) argues that nearly all health plans discriminate against patients with brain disorders such as schizophrenia, depression and manic depression. The California Psychological Association supports this bill in concept, and is sponsoring SB 468 (Polanco), which would require coverage for all mental illnesses. 10.The California Association of Health Plans (CAHP) opposes this bill unless amended. CAHP is urging the author to exclude individuals and small employers from the coverage requirements in this bill. The California Network of Mental Health Clients is opposed to this bill unless amended to exclude coverage of involuntary treatment. The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), established by the Church of Scientology to address psychiatric violations of human rights, argues this bill will mandate dubious science, increase the ranks of the uninsured, and provide a gateway to insurance fraud. The California Manufacturers Association and the Health Insurance Association of America opposes AB 88, stating it would increase health insurance costs and, therefore, lead to more uninsured Californians. Blue Cross of California objects to the cost and the lack of restriction on inpatient or outpatient days. Continued--- STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 88 (Thomson) Page 7 11.Protection and Advocacy Inc. has taken a "Support if amended" position and requested the following amendments: Amend the bill to ensure broad mental health coverage by defining outpatient services consistent with the managed care definitions and clarifying that the basic health benefits of Section 1367(I) of the Health and Safety Code apply to mental health coverage; Amend the bill to ensure equal access to coverage for medically necessary treatment for all enrollees, regardless of diagnosis or severity of condition; Provide that a person shall not be required to accept insurance coverage for involuntary mental health treatment, but allow persons to choose to authorize reimbursement for such treatment. 5.A key issue policy issue raised by this bill is whether California should adopt a comprehensive mental health parity legislation or legislation that explicitly seeks parity for a limited number of conditions. This Committee passed on April 7, 1999, SB 468 (Polanco), which contains comprehensive parity, i.e., parity for all mental illnesses. AB 88 clearly would provide parity for selected mental illnesses, but it is unclear what the impact would be on other disorders. By requiring coverage for some, but not all mental illness, are additional inequities inadvertently created? For example, this bill would require certain anxiety disorders, such as "panic disorder" and "obsessive-compulsive disorder" to be covered by health plans, but not others, such as "posttraumatic stress disorder". Also, this bill would require coverage of "pervasive developmental disorder or autism" but it is unclear whether related conditions, such as "Asperger's Disorder" or "Rhett's disorder" would be covered. Similarly, "major depressive disorder" and "bipolar disorder" would be covered, but it appears "dysthymic disorder" would not be covered. Examples of other disorders which may not be covered by this bill would include developmental disabilities (other than autism and pervasive developmental disorder), borderline personality disorder and other personality disorders. The Committee may wish to inquire what will be the expected impact of Continued--- STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 88 (Thomson) Page 8 requiring coverage for the disorders named in this bill on existing coverage of disorders not named in the bill? I.e., are insurance plans likely to drop coverage of other disorders, not named in the bill, if only required to cover the named disorders? Also, what is the additional cost of mandatory coverage of all of the disorders versus selected disorders? PRIOR ACTIONS Assembly Floor: 59-18 Pass Assembly Appropriations: 14- 6 Do Pass Assembly Health: 10- 0 Do Pass Continued--- STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 88 (Thomson) Page 9 POSITIONS Support: California Alliance for the Mentally Ill (sponsor) American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees Association of Regional Center Agencies California Healthcare Association California Healthcare Association's California Physician Group's Council California Mental Health Directors Association California Mental Health Planning Council California Physician Groups Council California Public Employees' Retirement System California Nurses Association California State Association of Counties California State Employees Association California Teachers Association County Health Executives Association of California Friends Committee on Legislation Jericho Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors National Alliance for the Mentally Ill-Whittier Pomona Valley Alliance for the Mentally Ill Protection and Advocacy, Inc. (support, if amended) Solano County Board of Supervisors Union of American Physicians & Dentists Urban Counties Caucus 1 Individual Oppose: Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies Blue Cross of California California Association of Health Plans (opposed unless amended) Californians for Affordable Health Reform California Manufacturer's Association STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 88 (Thomson) Page 10 Citizens Commission on Human Rights Health Insurance Association of America -- END --