I admit, I’m just not going to read the more than 2,000 pages that are the House and Senate health care reform bills. Maybe it’s the environmentalist in me, or maybe it’s the knowledge that much of what I read would make me mad.
However, thanks to my many sources who — bless them — have read the bills in their entirety, I can gain valuable info that pacifies my inner greenie but unfortunately still gets under my skin. The latest nuggets come courtesy of Spencer’s Benefits Reports, which combed through H.R. 3962 (the bill passed last month in the House) and H.R. 3590 (the Senate’s stab at reform), and found some particularly jagged little pills for employers. Among them, SBR sussed out that H.R. 3950 would require employers to cover (at 100%, mind you):
* Certain evidence-based items (with A or B ratings) in line United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. Yes, that’s the same panel that lit a firestorm of controversy last month with its guidelines on mammography. Because of the controversy, though, the USPSTF recs for mammograms are exempt.
* Immunizations recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
* Evidence-based preventive care and screenings for children within guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration.
* Additional women’s preventive care and screenings in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration.
I don’t think anyone can argue that greater emphasis on preventive and evidence-based care is absolutely good and necessary. All the same, that’s a lot of mandates, no? According to SBR, here’s some of what’s included on that list of A or B-rated preventive screenings:
* Depression screening.
* Dietary counseling for adults at risk for cardiovascular and diet-related chronic disease.
* Fluoride supplements for preschool children.
* High-blood pressure screening.
* Substance abuse counseling/interventions.
Not only would employers need to cover all of these screenings, they’d need to cover them for a lot more people, since both the House and Senate proposals would cover dependents up to age 27 and 26, respectively. Wow. A dependent at 27?! I may need one of those depression screenings …
