Approach to serious issue too glib
Senate Bill 36 is a serious issue of equity in insurance coverage for mental health conditions, and deserves a thoughtful opinion informed by available facts, not the glib opinions and allegations upon which the Rocky Mountain News bases its position (“Smitten by mandates,” April 5).
The Rocky maintains that “it’s difficult to predict how much premiums would rise,” but made no use of a study from Price Waterhouse in the numerous states where mental health parity has occurred (that study is readily available from the Mental Health Association of Colorado). Consistently, the impact of mental health parity on total claims cost is less than 2 percent and often is negligible.
Another reason for the insurance industry’s opposition: although the premium dollars underwriting mental health care are quite small (as a part of the overall insurance premium) they are extremely profitable. That might explain why Wellpoint/Anthem, Aetna, CIGNA, and United have all ended their mental health carve-outs and brought this business in-house. Perhaps they are less concerned about the cost of health insurance than the impact of this double standard of coverage on their bottom lines.
Dan Fishbein, Arvada