To the Editor:

In the March 12 edition of The Delaware County Daily Times there was an editorial which contained a "Parting Shot" opposing legislation I have introduced requiring insurance companies to provide coverage for non-hospital in-patient treatment for eating disorders. Currently some (although not all) insurance policies only cover acute, crisis care for eating disorders. They will pay the bills for a woman who is rushed to the hospital near death and force-fed until she is back to a survivable weight. But they will not pay to actually treat the disease.

The treatment widely considered the most, if not the only effective protocol for curing eating disorders involves weeks or months of intensive in-patient therapy at a facility that specializes in treating such disorders. Absent this treatment, a patient is overwhelmingly likely to continue starving themselves and wind up right back in the hospital. Many will die.

The editorial, which tastefully says the thought of my bill is "making some people sick" does begin compassionately enough by acknowledging that "nobody likes eating disorders". I'm certain this is a great comfort to the families of those suffering. But the editorial then goes on to make the same argument we hear every time we ask health insurance companies to actually pay for some health care. It claims that "legislation like this" presumably requiring health insurance companies to pay to treat sick people, contributes to "spiraling health insurance rate increases". (The editorial does not specify what other mandated treatments it opposes under the same logic. Mammograms? Colon Cancer Screening? Expensive Chemotherapy?)

On one level the editorial is correct. Although covering eating disorders alone won't add much if anything to the cost of health insurance, it is true that the cumulative affect of requiring health insurance companies to pay for medical care is to raise premiums. Of course another thing that contributes to the rise in premiums is the enormous profits that health insurance companies continue to report each quarter.

But putting that aside, the logic of the editorial is that the less insurance companies cover, the cheaper insurance will be. And again, that is true. In fact, if we want insurance to be really cheap, insurance companies shouldn't have to cover anything at all. If they never have to pay anything, policies will be close to free! The problem of course is that if insurance companies don't pay for treatment to make sick people better, it's difficult to see what value these companies add to our health care system (other than profits for themselves).

So if we're going to require insurance companies to pay for anything at all, it is necessary that there be some standards to determine what such coverage should be. It seems to me that requiring payment for proven treatments which have been shown to cure devastating, often fatal diseases is a reasonable standard. Under such a standard, the treatment requirement in my eating disorders bill would easily qualify.

Keep in mind, that the editorial's argument is not logically against my eating disorders bill only. It is an argument against requiring insurance companies to ever pay anything towards our health care out of the billions and billions of dollars they take in from us each year. That would indeed result in cheaper premiums, but I'm not sure it would be a comfort to any of us the next time we get sick.

Daylin


=======================================================================

Parting Shot

State Sen. Daylin Leach, D-17, of Upper Merion, is holding a press conference in Harrisburg Monday to unveil "landmark legislation" that would require health insurers in the state to cover non-hospital, in-patient treatment for eating disorders. On the surface, that sounds like a nice idea.

Nobody likes eating disorders. But the truth is, it's legislation like this that has contributed to spiraling health insurance rate increases that have pushed basic coverage beyond the reach of many. What is worse? Having a policy that doesn't cover non-hospital treatment for eating disorders, or not having a policy at all? Do us a favor, senator. Drop this idea. Just thinking about it is making some people sick.