COMPANY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

Company Policies and Procedures

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION3

INSURANCE PARITY LAW3

PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE LAW6

CONCLUSION8

REFERENCES10

Company Policy and Procedure

Introduction

In this paper, I would like to propose some changes in the existing policy on insurance piracy for the employees of ABC Shipments Inc. ABC Shipments Inc. is a firm that deals in import and export of edible oils, soaps and other consumer goods. I have been employed in this firm for the last five years as Senior Manager Human Resource.

The problem faced by the company is that not all the employees are covered under the current insurance parity policy and thus it should be reviewed and changed so that all the eligible workers are accommodated and enjoy the prevailing benefits.

Insurance Parity Law

In the past decade, the federal government and a growing number of states have enacted legislation mandating that employers offer parity in their health insurance coverage for behavioral health benefits. These laws vary with respect to the types of employers, behavioral health problems, and benefit limits that are encompassed in the parity mandates.

At the federal level, the Mental Health Parity Act (MHPA) was passed by Congress in 1996 and became effective in January 1998. Opponents of parity warned that it would greatly increase costs of insurance, and in light of these concerns, the MHPA was very limited in scope (Ridgely, 2006). The act requires that employers who offer health insurance with mental health benefits provide lifetime and annual dollar limits that are equal to those for other medical benefits. The parity provisions do not extend to substance use disorders. Even for mental disorders, there are no requirements for parity in limits on number of inpatient days, number of outpatient visits, or in dollar amounts required for deductibles or co-payments.

Furthermore, it applies only to employers with more than 50 employees. Although the MHPA represented an important legislative victory for mental health advocates, its limited scope resulted in limited impact (Newhouse, 2007). In 2007, Congress debated a bill to extend parity to substance use disorders and provide for equal benefits beyond dollar limits; at this writing the bill is still under consideration. Under President Clinton's directive, the health plans that provide benefits to all federal employees under the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) program were mandated to implement parity in benefits for mental and substance use disorders as of January 2001 (Goldman, 2006). The mandate called for equity across all benefit limits including dollar limits, limits on visits and inpatient days, and deductibles and co-payments.

This was a far-reaching parity mandate, affecting about 8.5 million health plan enrollees.

Many states have also enacted parity legislation. Prior to the federal MHPA in 1996 only five states had adopted parity mandates, but the pace of state parity mandates quickly increased following the MHPA. Early legislation, however, was largely focused on equating particular benefits for specific mental health conditions; substance use disorders were generally excluded. Legislation including substance use disorders was slow to develop because of the absence of a well-organized advocacy community and lower public support ...