| | | | |  | | By Evan Peng, Erin Schumaker and Daniel Payne | | | | |  Everyone agrees it's still too hard to get mental health care, but there's no accord on the cause of the problem. | AFP via Getty Images | | Democrats and Republicans are alarmed at the state of their constituents’ mental health. Some lawmakers are even opening up about their own struggles. The Biden administration thinks insurers’ failure to offer mental health coverage on the same terms as physical health, as a 2008 law requires, is a big part of the problem, POLITICO’s Ben Leonard reports. What’s Biden doing about it? The administration has proposed new rules it says will make the insurers comply and it’s threatening big fines if they don’t. If finalized, they would mandate that insurers analyze their coverage to ensure equivalent access to mental health care based on outcomes. The companies would have to look at how they respond to requests from doctors to authorize treatments for mental illness, compared with physical ones, as well as audit their provider networks and examine how much they reimburse providers out of network. "We always hope for collaboration, but the rule has sticks as well,” Neera Tanden, head of President Joe Biden’s domestic policy council, told Ben. “We hope insurers will change their behavior going forward without the sticks, but we will continue to fully enforce the parity law." Those sticks include fines of $100 per policyholder per day if insurers don’t close loopholes the administration says they’re using to limit what they pay for mental health care. The administration says those ploys include requirements that doctors seek insurers’ approval before delivering care, lower reimbursement rates for providers who treat mental illness and deliberate efforts to limit the number of in-network physicians available to patients. Insurers respond: Insurance companies say Biden is scapegoating them and that they are already doing their best to lean on technology like telehealth to boost access to care, expand their provider networks and increase what they pay those providers. They’re also trying to better integrate mental health in primary care. “Access to mental health has been, and continues to be, challenging primarily because of a shortage and lack of clinicians, which is why for years, health insurance providers have implemented programs and strategies to expand networks and increase access,” AHIP spokesperson Kristine Grow said in a statement. What’s next? The proposed regulations, from HHS and the Treasury and Labor departments, are open for public comment until Oct. 2.
| | | | GO INSIDE THE CAPITOL DOME: From the outset, POLITICO has been your eyes and ears on Capitol Hill, providing the most thorough Congress coverage — from political characters and emerging leaders to leadership squabbles and policy nuggets during committee markups and hearings. We're stepping up our game to ensure you’re fully informed on every key detail inside the Capitol Dome, all day, every day. Start your day with Playbook AM, refuel at midday with our Playbook PM halftime report and enrich your evening discussions with Huddle. Plus, stay updated with real-time buzz all day through our brand new Inside Congress Live feature. Learn more and subscribe here. | | | | | | | | | 
Xiangshan, Beijing, China | Evan Peng | This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. Millennials are most interested in giving psychedelic medicine a spin. According to a new Morning Consult poll, more than half of Millennials were interested in trying psychedelics as a mental health treatment, compared to 41 percent of Gen Z, 33 percent of Gen X, and only 10 percent of Baby Boomers. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Carmen Paun at cpaun@politico.com, Daniel Payne at dpayne@politico.com, Evan Peng at epeng@politico.com or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@politico.com. Send tips securely through SecureDrop, Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp. Today on our Pulse Check podcast, host Alice Miranda Ollstein talks with POLITICO reporter Sally Goldenberg about how former President Donald Trump’s zigzagging on abortion policy is causing turmoil in the anti-abortion movement and shaking up the GOP presidential primary.
| | | | | | | 
Newsom has a few more weeks to decide whether to sign the Delete Act. | Justin Sullivan/Getty Images | California’s on the verge of enacting legislation regulating data brokers that could have significant health care implications. The measure, which lawmakers sent to Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom last week, would require the brokers to delete personal information upon a person’s request, POLITICO’s Eric He and Alfred Ng report. The case for: The bill’s author, state Sen. Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park), has cited the Supreme Court’s decision permitting states to ban abortion as reason enough to give patients more control over information about themselves – since it’s possible states that have outlawed abortion could use the data in criminal cases. The case against: Opponents of the bill, including the brokers as well as advertising firms, argue it will raise health care costs by denying hospitals and providers that rely on data brokers to identify patients across health systems the ability to resolve patient identity issues. The opponents, led by the advertising firm Interpublic Group, have also argued the bill would make it more difficult for health systems to perform “database hygiene,” in which they update records with changes to address and other contact information. That would make it more difficult to deliver important health information, they contend. State of play: Newsom hasn’t said whether he’ll sign it, but if he does, it will be the first law of its kind in the country.
| | | | HAPPENING 9/28 — INSIDE THE CANCER MOONSHOT: Join POLITICO on Thursday, Sept. 28 for an in-depth discussion on the future of cancer treatment and innovation. Hear from experts including scientists, government officials and industry leaders as we explore the critical roles played by private industry, nonprofits, the National Cancer Institute and the new Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health in achieving the Biden administration's goal of cutting the cancer death rate in half over the next 25 years. Don't miss this opportunity to dive into the progress of cancer treatments and learn about the challenges patients encounter in accessing care. REGISTER HERE. | | | | | | | | |  Google's one of several firms aiming to dominate artificial intelligence in health care. | AFP via Getty Images | Artificial intelligence isn’t here to replace doctors, Google’s chief clinical officer says, it’s here to assist them. In a conversation with JAMA Editor in Chief Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, Dr. Michael Howell discussed AI innovation as it pertains to health, along with AI’s benefits and potential drawbacks. Here’s what he had to say: 1. AI is improving at a lightning pace. A December 2022 Google AI model scored 67 percent on a mock medical licensing exam. Only a few months later, a May 2023 model scored 87 percent on the same test. Furthermore, in blind reviews comparing responses to patient questions by actual doctors and the AI models, physician evaluators slightly preferred the responses from actual doctors over the ones from the December 2022 model. But they preferred the responses from the May 2023 model over ones from actual doctors by a lot. 2. AI will be a tool, not a replacement. AI can alleviate some of the drudgery of medical practice, Howell said, by handling administrative tasks such as organizing notes and filling out prior authorization paperwork. “AI has this chance to be vigilant, to not get tired, to be able to look for things that might be buried in the record,” Howell said. 3. Health data privacy is paramount. Chatbots and other AI tools could divulge sensitive information if they’re designed or used incorrectly, Howell warned. “It’s important for people to realize the risk if you just go type [sensitive information] into a chatbot, you don’t have those guarantees,” Howell said. | | | | Follow us on Twitter | | | | Follow us | | | | |
Comments
Post a Comment