In our view: Mental-health parity

The hackneyed, unfunny-by-now joke is that Brian Baird’s background as a clinical psychologist prepares him especially well for working in Congress. Har-har. If Baird had a dollar for every time he’s heard that one, he could bail out a bank or two.

But the more practical and sensible application of Baird’s professional background enables him to push key legislation on a more serious social need: improving the quality of life for people who receive mental-health treatment. They look to the U.S. representative from Vancouver as a strong and steady advocate.

Baird came through for them — for all of us — again with Tuesday’s passage in the House of a mental-health parity bill. Approved by an overwhelming 376-47 bipartisan vote, the bill would require group health plans with 51 or more employees to cover mental health treatment equally with the medical care of people with physical ailments.

In Washington state, a mental-health parity bill was approved three years ago, and strengthened this year. In Congress, the Senate also this week passed a mental-health parity bill overwhelmingly (93-2), but as Kathie Durbin reported in Thursday’s Columbian, the two bills must be reconciled. However, the calendar and the clock are working against this year’s bill. Congress is scheduled to recess today. As of Thursday afternoon, there was continuing talk of extending the session.

Even if the bill dies in this session, a compelling precedent has been established. With the combined passage by 90 percent of the House and Senate members, Congress has affirmed the importance of mental-health parity. And although a delay would be troubling, this year’s affirmation should set the stage for swift action by a post-election Congress next year.

The need for this legislation cannot be overstated. People with mental illnesses should not have to pay higher co-pays than people with physical illnesses, nor should their health insurance cover fewer office visits. Such inequities exist today, however, and they are simply inhumane.

Some lawmakers such as Baird are motivated by their professional background. “We know that (mental health) treatment is effective and it can improve people’s lives,” Baird said. “And we know that it’s cost-effective from an economic standpoint.”

Other lawmakers are motivated by personal experience. One is U.S. Rep. Jim Ramstad, R-Minn., who helped usher the bill through the House. “I am alive and sober today only because of the access that I had to treatment following my last alcoholic blackout on July 31, 1981,” Ramstad said, according to The ­Associated Press. Another is U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., who has recovered from depression, alcoholism and substance abuse to become a congressional advocate for ­mental-health parity.

As Brendan Daly, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said this week, “The will is there in both the House and Senate to get this done.” The only question is: When? Immediately would be in the best interests of mental-health patients, specifically, but also for society in general as we seek to become more compassionate, more attentive and more civilized.

No longer are mental-health issues dismissed as hopeless mysteries. Science, technology and medicine have made significant advances. It’s time now — or next year — for Congress to make its own overdue strides.