May 25, 2012

Where ′O Where are the Regulations for the Mental Health Parity Act?

Ford & Harrison

The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (the "Mental Health Parity Act"), passed last year, requires group health plans for businesses with more than 50 employees to provide any mental health or substance use disorder benefits they offer on par with other medical or surgical benefits. That is, the Mental Health Parity Act prohibits such group health plans from being more restrictive with regard to any mental health and substance use disorder benefits offered than the medical and surgical benefits being offered. Employers are not required to offer mental health or substance use disorder benefits. But if they do, parity among these benefits is required in regard to financial requirements and treatment limitations, annual and lifetime dollar maximums, and out-of-network providers.

The Mental Health Parity Act also requires plan administrators to make available upon request the criteria for medical necessity determinations made under the plan with respect to mental health or substance use disorder benefits. In addition, plan administrators must make available upon request or "as otherwise required" the reason for any denial of coverage or reimbursement under the plan with respect to mental health or substance use disorder benefits.

The Mental Health Parity Act generally became effective for plan years beginning on or after October 4, 2009. This means that plan sponsors with calendar year plans must comply with the requirements under the Mental Health Parity Act by January 1, 2010. However, regulations for the Mental Health Parity Act have not yet been published.

Earlier this week the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury indicated that they are still working to develop regulations for the Mental Health Parity Act. These regulations are now expected by January 2010.

The Bottom Line

Until the regulations are issued, employers must carefully review their plan documents to assess whether the scope of services, medical management, financial and treatment limitations, and deductibles discriminate against any mental health or substance use disorder coverage. At the very least, plans should make reasonable efforts to adhere to the Mental Health Parity Act's intent so that good faith compliance is shown. To the extent that plans decide now to drop their mental health or substance use disorder coverage, Summaries of Material Reduction must be provided, and revisions will need to be made to the Summary Plan Descriptions, benefit booklets, and other benefit communications.

© 2009 Ford & Harrison LLP

About the Author

Joelle Sharman concentrates her practice in the area of ERISA litigation, employee benefits, and employment law. She advises and defends employers, employer-sponsored plans, insurance companies, third-party administrators and plan fiduciaries against all types of claims under ERISA, including benefit and discrimination claims, and claims for breach of fiduciary duty. Joelle also counsels employers and management on issues pertaining to employee welfare benefit plans, and provides advice with the drafting and administration of such plans. Joelle is a frequent speaker on employee benefits,...

404-888-3975

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.