Those Pesky Health Care Costs

The Massachusetts Legislature's Joint Committee on Mental Health and Substance Abuse has proposed HB 4423 which, if enacted into law, will mandate that health insurers expand the coverage for certain non-biological based mental illness, such as substance abuse, eating disorders and post-traumatic stress. The primary sponsor of the bill is Ruth B. Balser (D-Newton), chair of the Committee and also a practicing Clinical Psychologist. Under present law, such disorders have limited coverage. At a time when the high costs of health care are of concern to all, it might be helpful consider some of the implications of this bill.

According to an article in today's Globe, no one seems to know how much this additional coverage will cost. Perhaps some people really think that this means that the insurance companies will thus assume the cost, whatever it may be. Not exactly. Insurance companies manage risk, they are not sources of public benevolence. The insurance companies will add the cost, whatever it may be, of this coverage to the premiums that we all pay for our health insurance. So, at the end of the day, so to speak, we will all be paying for additional benefits that we may not want. That's not to say that a case can't be made for treating these disorders, but they collectively fall into the same category as such coverages as Chiropractic care, acupuncture and infertility treatments that seem outside the mainstream of necessary medicine.

It is also helpful to ask who is demanding these coverages, heretofore considered unsuitable for inclusion in basic health coverage, be mandated by law. It seems highly unlikely that the legislators are being motivated by throngs of citizens demanding that they be allowed to pay more for benefits they neither want or need. What does seem likely is the influence of lobbyists representing the providers of such services. Call me old fashioned, but isn't there a conflict of interest inherent in a Clinical Psychologist sponsoring a bill that will increase the income of mental health practitioners?

And as far as those who think that business will pick up the cost, it's time to think again. The community in which I reside hires third-party contractors for property maintenance. Late last year, one of our primary contractors asked for an increase in his fees. The primary reason given was the new requirement that he provides health insurance for his employees. This example stands out for the direct linkage between the cause and effect of what has become our higher prices. But don't think for a minute that this same buck-passing hasn't occured in virtually every business in the state. So who is really paying for the government's largess?

Fed up with the high price of health insurance, this would be a good time to let your State Rep know how you feek about HR 4423. Tell him, or her, that you do not want to pay higher premiums for coverage you don't want.