Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cost Sharing Elimination topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate bill would eliminate cost-sharing for mental-health and substance-use care; proponents cite equity and access
Summary
Senate Bill 7 18 would bar copays and deductibles for covered mental-health and substance-use disorder services; sponsors and advocates told the committee that cost sharing is a substantial barrier to care and that removing it would promote continuity and equity.
Senate Bill 7 18, testimony at the Joint Committee on Financial Services said, would eliminate patient cost-sharing for covered mental-health and substance-use disorder services in commercial plans unless a federal tax-status constraint applied. Supporters framed the bill as an equity and access measure to remove recurring financial barriers such as visit copays and deductibles that deter ongoing treatment.
Senator Brendan Crighton (remarks delivered in the hearing) summarized the bill’s purpose: eliminate out-of-pocket charges for covered behavioral-health outpatient treatment so patients are not forced to skip therapy or medication appointments because of cost. He and other witnesses said recurring costs — often $30–$50 per visit under some plans — can be prohibitive for people managing chronic conditions.
Supporters argued eliminating cost sharing would improve access and continuity of care, reduce long-term costs associated with avoidable hospitalizations, and advance parity between behavioral and physical health services. Senator Crighton framed the proposal as consistent with recent state reforms such as the Mental Health ABC Act and the roadmap for behavioral-health reform.
Why it matters: Witnesses said cost sharing is one of the most common access barriers and disproportionately affects people with chronic behavioral-health needs. Supporters asked the committee to report the bill favorably and to pursue technical drafting to align with federal rules that could affect plan tax status.
Next steps: Advocates recommended a favorable report and additional actuarial review to assess any premium or fiscal impacts; no committee vote was recorded in the hearing.
