CA Mental Health Parity Bill Passes

GOP Lawmaker Implies Mental Illness Not "Legitimate" Illness

by Marcia Purse

On September 27, 1999, in a landmark victory for the rights of the mentally ill, California Governor Gray Davis signed into law AB 88 the Mental Health Parity Bill. This bill, by Assemblywoman Helen Thomson, will require insurers and HMOs to provide equal benefits for the treatment of severe mental illnesses and serious emotional disturbances of children. The covered "severe mental illnesses" are:

• schizophrenia
• schizoaffective disorder
• bipolar disorder (manic-depressive illness)
• major depressive disorders
• panic disorder
• obsessive-compulsive disorder
• pervasive developmental disorder or autism
• anorexia nervosa, and
• bulimia nervosa

To most people who have experience with mental illness, the need for parity in insurance seems self-evident. But there was considerable opposition to the passage of AB 88. Health insurance organizations wanted limitations put on coverage and the exclusion of individuals and small businesses. The Church of Scientology, via their anti-psychiatry Citizens Community on Human Rights, argued that the bill would "mandate dubious science." Some groups wanted the bill's language broadened to cover all mental illnesses, although it was likely this would have led to its defeat.

AB 88 passed the California State Senate by a vote of 31-6 and the Assembly by 62-12.

At least one of those who voted against AB 88 - all members of the GOP - appears to be disgruntled, however. Republican State Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian's e-mail newsletter to constituents, dated after the bill was signed into law, contained the following commentary.

From: Assemblymember.Kaloogian.Newsletter@assembly.ca.gov

THE
KALOOGIAN INSIDER
Volume 1, Issue 34
Friday, Sept. 31, 1999 [sic]
California State Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian

CAUSE AND AFFECTED...
One of the more aggressive issues pursued this legislative term was the bureaucratic expansion of what exactly is "mental health." One bill sent to the governor, AB 88 by Assemblywoman Helen Thomson, D-Fairfield, forces insurers to cover such "severe mental illnesses" as bipolar disorder and panic disorder. When AB 88 went through the review process, heads-up health professionals and leaders of mental-health support groups opposed the bill, contending many patients with these illnesses are living normal lives and should not be turned into victims.

Note: The list of the bill's supporters includes 18 health and mental health groups; the opposition list includes two mental health groups, both special-interest groups seeking specific amendments.

To paraphrase Isaac Newton, every action in politics leads to another, more expensive, reaction. A report issued by a psychiatry task force predicts - don't be surprised now! - an "unprecedented explosion" in psychiatric problems among aging Baby Boomers! The report predicts a 275% jump in "psychiatrically ill elderly" by the year 2030. One factor cited for this increase is the need to treat the "survivors" of the 1960s and '70s drug culture, who are about to learn more about the consequences of using illicit drugs.

The referenced report was not available for review; however, a couple of important notes should be made. First, in the case of Bipolar Disorder, it is an established fact that self-medication with illegal drugs is an all-too-common symptom, and that the disorder is the precursor, not the result. And an Australian study was unable to determine whether cannabis use precipitated psychosis, or people with pre-existing psychiatric conditions were more likely to turn to cannabis, but did find that recovery was aided when cannabis use was halted. This certainly argues against any hypothesis that drug use which ended 20-30 years ago is going to cause new problems during the next 30 years. (For more details see Cannabis and Psychosis, published by the Australian government.)

How are we, as a state and a nation, going to pay for the expensive treatment of this new class of victims? The Democrat majority in California has only one answer - through the expansion of government-mandated health care. And who pays for this? All of us, through increased insurance premiums, reductions in coverage, higher co-pays, more taxes, etc.

As reported in The San Jose Mercury News and also brought into the record while AB 88 was in committee, "a Rand Corp. study of the insurance history of Ohio state employees found that in a managed care environment, insurance parity for mental illness added a premium increase of only $1 per member."

This expansion of cost with dubious benefit also negatively impacts research and treatment of legitimate diseases [emphasis mine] associated with aging, such as Alzheimer's.

Perhaps this last statement reveals the true reasons why Mr. Kaloogian voted against the Mental Health Parity Bill. The bill states at its outset: "Mental illness is real." Apparently Mr. Kaloogian does not agree.