Improving Access to Institutional Mental Health Care Act
Summary
H.R. 5662, the "Improving Access to Institutional Mental Health Care Act," aims to amend Title XIX of the Social Security Act. The bill seeks to remove the exclusion of items and services furnished to patients in institutions for mental diseases (IMDs) from Medicaid coverage. This change would allow federal medical assistance under Medicaid to cover care provided in IMDs, potentially expanding access to mental health services.
Expected Effects
The primary effect of this bill would be to expand Medicaid coverage to include services provided in IMDs. This could lead to increased access to mental health care for individuals who require institutionalization. It also removes age restrictions related to IMD care, potentially benefiting a broader age range.
Potential Benefits
- Increased access to mental health care for individuals in IMDs.
- Potential for improved quality of care due to increased funding.
- Elimination of age-based restrictions, allowing more individuals to qualify for assistance.
- May reduce the financial burden on states for mental health services.
- Could lead to earlier intervention and treatment for mental health conditions.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential increase in Medicaid spending.
- Possible shift of resources away from community-based mental health services.
- Risk of over-reliance on institutional care rather than outpatient services.
- Concerns about the quality of care in some IMDs.
- Potential for fraud and abuse in billing for services.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill appears to align with the Constitution's general welfare clause (Preamble). The expansion of healthcare access could be argued as promoting the general welfare. However, the specific details of implementation and potential impacts on states' rights would need further examination to ensure full constitutional alignment. The 10th Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, and the federal government mandating specific healthcare coverage could potentially infringe upon state autonomy.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).