Bill Overview
Title: Parity Enforcement Act of 2022
Description: 22 This bill provides authority for the Department of Labor to enforce the parity requirements for group health plans with respect to the coverage of mental health and substance use disorder benefits.
Sponsors: Sen. Murphy, Christopher [D-CT]
Target Audience
Population: People with group health plans affected by mental health and substance use disorder parity
Estimated Size: 50000000
- The bill targets group health plans, which typically cover employees of businesses offering such plans as part of employee benefits.
- Mental health and substance use disorders affect a significant portion of the global population, with estimates suggesting that over 10% of the population may suffer from some mental health disorder at any given time.
- While the legislation specifically enables enforcement of parity in the US, the indirect implications might affect the global discourse on mental health parity in health coverage.
Reasoning
- The Parity Enforcement Act primarily impacts individuals with access to group health plans, particularly those experiencing mental health or substance use challenges.
- While group health plans cover a large population, not all individuals access mental health benefits, which will affect the policy's reach.
- Given the budget, enforcement efforts may prioritize larger employers or those with existing parity compliance issues.
- Immediate effects may be more noticeable for those already seeking mental health care, while long-term effects could manifest as stigma reduction and increased access.
- A portion of the population will not be directly affected if they do not require mental health services or are not covered by employer-sponsored plans.
Simulated Interviews
Manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think increased enforcement could make therapy more affordable for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Software Engineer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm unlikely to use mental health services, but it's good to know they would be covered better if needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Freelancer (Austin, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't directly help me now, but I see its value when I was employed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
HR Specialist (Miami, FL)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy means we need to revisit our health coverage more regularly to ensure compliance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Marketing Coordinator (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having mental health coverage at parity is a relief and makes me more hopeful about treatment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired (Seattle, WA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I already had good mental health benefits, so this doesn't impact me much now.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Teacher (Boston, MA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy can ease financial stress by making therapy costs predictable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Entrepreneur (Denver, CO)
Age: 34 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Though I currently use private insurance, the policy benefits remind me of important past coverage.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Factory Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to know if I or my kids ever need mental health services, they will be covered fairly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Graphic Designer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is encouraging and makes me feel supported by my employer.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $150000000)
Year 2: $95000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $140000000)
Year 3: $90000000 (Low: $65000000, High: $130000000)
Year 5: $85000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $120000000)
Year 10: $80000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $110000000)
Year 100: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Key Considerations
- Initial setup costs for the enforcement mechanisms might be significant compared to ongoing costs.
- The measure’s effectiveness is heavily contingent upon adequate funding and administrative capacity of the Department of Labor.
- Impact estimation factors include responsiveness of insurance entities to regulatory enforcement and adaptation by healthcare providers.