THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
The term ``severe biologically-based mental illness'' means the above illnesses as defined by current medical science in conjunction with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV).
[Page: S3704] GPO's PDF
REQUIREMENTS AND EXEMPTIONS
Elimination of the September 30, 2001 sunset provision in the MHPA.
Like the MHPA the bill does not require plans to provide coverage for benefits relating to alcohol and drug abuse.
There is a small business exemption for companies with 25 or fewer employees.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 1999, a bit that will ensure that private health insurance companies provide the same level of coverage for mental illness as they do for other diseases. This bill will be a major step toward ending the discrimination against people who suffer from mental illness.
For too long, mental illness has been stigmatized, or viewed as a character flaw, rather than as the serious disease that it is. A cloak of secrecy has surrounded this disease, and people with mental illness are often ashamed and afraid to seek treatment, for fear that they will be seen as admitting a weakness in character. We have all seen portrayals of mentally ill people as somehow different, as dangerous, or as frightening. Such stereotypes only reinforce the biases against people with mental illness. Can you imagine this type of portrayal of someone who has a cardiac problem, or who happens to carry a gene that predisposes them to diabetes?
Although mental health research has well-established the biological, genetic, and behavioral components of many of the forms of serious mental illness, the illness is still stigmatized as somehow less important or serious than other illnesses. Too often, we try to push the problem away, deny coverage, or blame those with the illness for having the illness. We forget that someone with mental illness can look just like the person we see in the mirror, or the person who is sitting next to us on a plane. It can be our mother, or brother, or son, or daughter. It can be one of us. We have all known someone with a serious mental illness, within our families or our circle of friends, or in public life. Many people have courageously come forward to speak about their personal experiences with their illness, to help us all understand better the effects of this illness on a person's life, and I commend them for their courage.
The statistics concerning mental illness, and the state of health care coverage for adults and children with this disease are startling, and disturbing.
One severe mental illness affecting millions of Americans is major depression. The National Institute of Mental Health , a NIH research institute, within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, describes serious depression as a critical public health problem. More than 18 million people in the United States will suffer from a depressive illness this year, and many will be unnecessarily incapacitated for weeks or months, because their illness goes untreated. The cost to the Nation in 1990 was estimated to be between $30-$44 billion. The suffering of depressed people and their families is immeasurable.
Depressive disorders are not the normal ups and downs everyone experiences. They are illnesses that affect mood, body, behavior, and mind. Depressive disorders interfere with individual and family functioning. Without treatment, the person with a depressive disorder is often unable to fulfill the responsibilities of spouse or parent, worker or employer, friend or neighbor.
Available medications and psychological treatments, alone or in combination, can help 80 percent of those with depression. But without adequate treatment, future episodes of depression may continue or worsen in severity. Yet, the steady decline in the quality and breadth of health care coverage is truly disturbing.
The results of a major survey of employer-provided health plans was published in 1998 by the Hay Group, an independent benefits consulting firm. The Hay Report showed a major decline in benefits in the last decade:
Employer-provided mental health benefits decreased 54%--while benefits for general health decreased only 7%;
Even before this erosion occurred, mental h ealth b enefits made up only 6% of total medical benefits paid by employers. Today--that has been cut in half--it is down to 3%;
The number of plans restricting hospitalization for mental dis orders increased by 20%;
Descriptions of benefit limits themselves are misleading. Although plans may say that they allow 30 days for hospitalization, this is rarely approved. In 1996, the average length of stay was 8 1/2 days, down from 17 in 1991.
In 1988, most insurance plans allowed 50 therapy sessions per years. In 1997, the average number was 20.
A 1998 study published by Health Affa irs found that between 1991 and 1995, HMO enrollees were twice as likely to encounter limits on psychiatric visits, and about three times as likely to have separate, and higher, copayments than for general medical health care .
No one, of course, expects coverage of any illness to cost nothing. But what we do know is that fears of spiraling costs for mental heal th trea tment are unfounded. Studies from HHS that have examined the effects of mental heal th and substance abuse treatment parity have shown that full parity for these benefits would be just slightly higher than current premiums. Most reports, like the one requested by Congress from the National Advisory Mental Heal th Coun sel, showed that when mental heal th cove rage is managed, either moderately or tightly, that premium increases can be as low as 1%.
These costs are so low. And the cost of NOT treating is so high--especially when one looks at the toll that untreated mental illne ss takes on individuals, families, employers, corporations, social service systems, and criminal justice systems. I have seen first hand in the juvenile corrections system what happens when mental illne ss is criminalized, when youth with mental illne ss are incarcerated for exhibiting symptoms of their illness. To treat ill people as criminals is outrageous is outrageous and immoral. We must make treatment for this illness as available and as routine as treatment for any other disease. The discrimination must stop.
Our bill includes parity for h ospital day and outpatient visits for all mental illne sses. Additionally, for many of the most severe adult and child mental illne sses, the bill establishes full parity, i.e. , parity for c opayments, deductibles, hospital day, and outpatient visit benefits. The bill also provides protection for non-physician providers, and for states with stronger parity bills ; it also includes a small business exemption, and eliminates the sunset provision and the 1% exemption from the 1996 Mental Health Parity Act. C overed services include inpatient treatment; non-hospital residential treatment; outpatient treatment, including screening and assessment, medication management, individual, group and family counseling; and prevention services, including health educat ion and individual and group counseling to encourage the reduction of risk factors for mental illnes s.
The Mental Health Equita ble Treatment Act of 1999 provides for major improvements in coverage for mental illnes s by private health insure rs. It does not require that mental health benefi ts be part of a health benefi ts package, but establishes a requirement for parity in cov erage for those plans that offer mental health benefi ts. This bill goes a long way toward our bipartisan goal: that mental illnes s be treated like any other disease in health care c overage.
Mr. President, the Mental Health Equita ble Treatment Act of 1999 is designed to take a large step toward ending the suffering of those with mental illnes s who have been unfairly discriminated against in their health covera ge. We must end this discrimination.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators DOMENICI and WELLSTONE, in introducing the Mental Health Equita ble Treatment Act of 1999, and I applaud them for their leadership on this issue. This legislation is an important step towards ensuring that people with mental illnes s have access to the care they need.
For too long, insurance plans have treated patients with mental illnes ses differently than those with physical illnesses. However, research has proven the biological origins of mental illnes s. It is now time to bring coverage of mental illnes s into the 20th century. There is no rational basis for excluding or limiting coverage for such conditions; doing so is patently discriminatory. Enactment of the Mental Health Parity Act in 1996, which I cosponsored,
[Page: S3705] GPO's PDF
In my home state of Rhode Island, over 28,000 people are suffering from severe mental illnes ses such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depression. These disorders can be as threatening to the health of the patient as physical illnesses, such as cancer or AIDS. Discriminatory coverage restrictions or cost-sharing requirements--such as limits on the number of therapy visits or disparate co-payments--place an undue hardship on these patients at a time when they require medical care.
If left untreated, mental illnes ses can result in more serious disability or even death. This legislation takes another step in helping to prevent such tragedies. I hope we one day will be able to end discrimination in the coverage of all mental illnes ses. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
By Mr. ASHCROFT:
S. 797. A bill to apply the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 to the International Olympic Committee; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE INTEGRITY ACT OF 1999
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, for decades Americans have watched with awe and amazement at the invigorating achievements of the world's Olympic athletes. When Gail Devers and Wendy Williams won Olympic medals, they inspired their hometown of Bridgeton, Missouri. When Nikki Ziegelmeyer won a speed skating Olympic medal, her hometown of Imperial Missouri cheered. And when Ray Armstead helped win the 4 by 400 meter relay, St. Louis was proud of its native son.
Gail, Wendy, Nikki and Ray won through sheer talent, toil and sweat. They pursued Olympic fame with honor and integrity, competed fairly, and won with dignity. Their athletic grace on the world stage helped spark dreams of future Olympic glory in young people today.
But now the Olympic torch has been dimmed, and the five Olympic rings have been tarnished by bribes and graft given to secure victory at any price. The victory pursued with moneyed vengeance was not in athletic competition. In this scandal, the Olympic athletes are the innocents, yet the scandal tarnishes their achievement. The villains at ground zero are those who decided where the games were to be played and those who hosted or will host the games. Such irony: Scandal torches the competition to host the world's most competitive and honorable games.
The facts are bleak--in their attempts to land the 2002 Olympics, leaders of the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee spent $4 million on gifts, scholarships, cash payments and other inducements for International Olympic Committee members; allegations by senior Olympic officials have raised questions about payments that may have been made to influence the selection of other Olympic cities; the Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into payments by Salt Lake City Olympic Officials; an independent investigation conducted by former Senator George Mitchell and former White House Chief of Staff Ken Duberstein concluded that receipt of ``valuables'' by International Olympic Committee members has become ``widespread, notorious, continuous, unchecked and ingrained in the way Olympic business is done.''; and the International Olympic Committee has expelled six of its members for corruption.
Now that these problems have been exposed to the world, the question is what should be done to stop this bribery from destroying the Olympic movement.
Today, Senator MCCAIN took a step in the right direction by convening a hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee. I regret the decision by the President of the International Olympic Committee, Juan Antonio Samaranch, to not attend that hearing. And I take exception with the comments of one of the IOC witnesses who told the Associated Press, and I quote, ``What I'm afraid is that they're doing it for political advantage and not for the benefit of anybody except for themselves. They just get on a soap box and preach their righteousness.''
Well, it is crystal clear to me that Congress should, for our Olympic athletes and the hometowns they represent, use soap and scrubbing and scrutiny to clean up this mess.
Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that is a vital step in restoring integrity to the IOC host city bidding process. The International Olympic Committee Integrity Act will expand the coverage of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to include the IOC. The FCPA prohibits U.S. businesses from offering bribes or kickbacks to foreign officials. The U.S. Olympic Committee has asked President Clinton to issue an executive order to cover the IOC under the FCPA. To date, the President has not done so. My bill accomplishes what the U.S. Olympic Committee has requested and that is to outlaw the gifts and payments such as those that have been made in the past to International Olympic Committee officials.
In addition, I am keeping open the option of removing the federal tax deduction that federal tax law provides for contributions made to the International Olympic Committee. I will review the testimony of IOC witnesses from today's Commerce Committee hearing before making a final decision.
In closing, Mr. President, we should give credit where it is due. When faced with a serious mistake that has been made, a test of character is whether you do the next right thing. Once the Salt Lake City problem was discovered, officials at the U.S. Olympic Committee responded quickly. The USOC asked for the Mitchell-Duberstein investigation I mentioned earlier. The USOC has implemented a series of internal and external reforms of procedures used to apply for hosting the Olympic Games. The USOC has strengthened ethics rules, and created a compliance officer to monitor U.S. bid cities. And, in the future, all honoraria received by committee members must be forfeited to the group's chief financial officer.
We have much more to do in order to restore confidence and dignity to the Olympics. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the International Olympic Committee Integrity Act. We owe it to Gail Devers, Wendy Williams, Nikki Ziegelmeyer, Ray Armstead and all future Olympic athletes.
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. BURNS, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. ABRAHAM, and Mr. KERRY):
S. 798. A bill to promote electronic commerce by encouraging and facilitating the use of encryption in interstate commerce consistent with the protection of national security, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
INTRODUCTION OF THE ``PROTECT'' ACT
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as the Members of the Senate know, for several years I have advocated the enactment of legislation that would facilitate the use of strong encryption. Beginning in the 104th Congress, I have introduced legislation that would ensure that the private sector continues to take the lead in developing innovative products to protect the security and confidentiality of our electronic information including the ability to export such American products.
I am pleased to rise today to introduce with my Chairman, Senator MCCAIN, the PROTECT ACT of 1999 (Promote Reliable On Line Transactions To Encourage Commerce and Trade). The bill reflects a number of discussions we have had this year about the importance of encryption in the digital age to promote electronic commerce, secure our confidential business and sensitive personal information, prevent crime and protect our national security by protecting the commercial information systems and electronic networks upon which America's critical infrastructures increasingly rely. I am extremely pleased to join with him in introducing this important legislation.
While this bill differs in important respects from the PRO-CODE legislation I introduced in the previous Congress, I do think it accomplishes a number of very important objectives. Specifically, the bill:
Prohibits domestic controls;
Guarantees that American industry will continue to be able to come up with innovative products;
[Page: S3706] GPO's PDF
Immediately decontrols encryption products using key lengths of 64 bits or less;
Permits the immediate exportability of 128 bit encryption in recoverable encryption products and in all encryption products to a broad group of legitimate and responsible commercial users and to users in allied countries;
Recognizes the futility of unilateral export controls on mass market products and where there are foreign alternatives and so permits the immediate exportability of strong encryption products whenever a public-private advisory board and the Secretary of Commerce determines that they are generally available, publicly available, or available from foreign suppliers;
Directs NIST to complete establishment of the Advanced Encryption Standard with 128 bit key lengths (the DES successor) by January 1, 2002 (and ensures that it is led by the private sector and open to public comment); and
Decontrols thereafter products incorporating the AES or its equivalent.
Today, we are in a world that is characterized by the fact that nearly everyone has a computer and that those computers are, for the most part, connected to one another. In light of that fact, it is becoming more and more important to ensure that our communications over these computer networks are conducted in a secure way. It is no longer possible to say that when we move into
the information age, we'll secure these networks, because we are already there. We use computers in our homes and businesses in a way that couldn't have been imagined 10 years ago, and these computers are connected through networks, making it easier to communicate than ever before. This phenomenon holds the promise of transforming life in States like Montana, where health care a nd state-of-the-art education can be delivered over networks to people located far away from population centers. These new technologies can improve the lives of real people, but only if the security of information that moves over these networks is safe and reliable.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents