Michigan House Bill HB5345

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 11/14/23
• Refer: 11/14/23

Caption

Human services: medical services; mental health parity and addiction equity compliance; provide for. Amends 1939 PA 280 (MCL 400.1 - 400.119b) by adding sec. 109o.

Impact

This legislation is positioned to create a significant impact on state laws related to health care services. By imposing an annual reporting requirement, it seeks to ensure that the design and application of mental health treatment limitations are scrutinized more closely. Furthermore, this could influence how health plans structure their benefits packages, potentially leading to a more equitable approach to mental health and substance use care. Stakeholders in the health care sector may be compelled to improve their practices in compliance with this bill, which emphasizes the importance of parity between mental health and physical health services.

Summary

House Bill 5345 seeks to amend the 1939 Public Act 280, known as the Social Welfare Act, by introducing a new section that mandates the Department of Health to collaborate with various health plans. The primary objective of this bill is to enhance compliance with mental health parity and addiction equity standards. Specifically, it addresses nonquantitative treatment limitations that apply to mental health and substance use disorder benefits as dictated by federal law. By establishing these reporting requirements, the bill aims to provide greater transparency and accountability within the health care system regarding how these benefits are administered.

Contention

While the bill is likely to be well-received by advocates for mental health services, it may face opposition from certain health insurance providers concerned about the potential financial implications of increased reporting and compliance obligations. Additionally, there may be debates surrounding the adequacy of the information shared in these reports and how it will be utilized by lawmakers and advisory councils to influence future health policies. The bill’s proponents argue that it is essential to ensure fair treatment in health care, while opponents might express concerns about the administrative burdens it places on health plans and the complexities involved in adhering to both state and federal guidelines.