New York Assembly Bill A08839

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/9/25
• Refer: 6/9/25

Caption

Prevents discrimination by insurers based on an individual's mental health or substance use disorder; incorporates into law federal enforcement rules set forth in the federal mental health parity and addiction equity act of 2008.

Impact

The implementation of A08839 may significantly enhance the accessibility of mental health and substance use disorder services for policyholders in New York. By mandating that insurers provide meaningful benefits across all classifications where medical and surgical benefits are offered, the bill aims to reduce gaps in care that have historically resulted in lesser treatment for mental health issues. Furthermore, the legislation calls for insurers to collect and evaluate data to assess the impact of their benefit designs on access to these vital services, thereby increasing oversight and accountability.

Summary

Bill A08839 seeks to amend existing insurance law to prevent discrimination by insurers based on individuals' mental health and substance use disorders. The proposed legislation aims to incorporate the federal standards established under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 into state law, ensuring that health insurance plans provide equitable access to mental health and substance use disorder benefits in comparison to medical and surgical services. The bill requires insurers to ensure that their plan benefit designs are non-discriminatory and comply with established parity regulations.

Contention

Despite the positive implications, the bill may also provoke contention regarding compliance and the administrative burden placed on insurers. Critics may argue that the extensive reporting and data collection measures outlined in the bill could lead to increased operational costs for health plans. Additionally, there might be concerns regarding the potential for regulatory overreach if compliance with the detailed reporting requirements becomes overly stringent, raising questions about the balance between ensuring parity and the administrative feasibility for insurance providers.