How anti-trust law could affect mental health
Approximately two years ago, Gov. Pritzker signed into law a permanent expansion of telehealth services in Illinois. One of the most consequential and helpful pieces of legislation stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic, the law requires that insurance companies provide coverage for virtual mental health and substance use treatment services.
The consequences of this legislation are significant, particularly against the backdrop of growing crises spanning mental health, trauma and addictive disorders. The widespread availability of telehealth is critical: It expands opportunities for early intervention, removes geographic and logistical barriers to care and maximizes workforce efficiency in mental health. As a result, more people have access to potentially lifesaving treatments.
It's critical, then, that we ensure current proposals circulating in Congress related to tech industry reform do not unintentionally undercut the security and advancement these tools that so many have come to rely on. The language contained in these bills is concerningly broad - their intent is to guard against antitrust practices, but they have the potential to undercut important workflow processes as collateral damage.
For example: I currently pay an extra fee to my electronic medical record provider for integrated telehealth. If this integration is deemed as non-competitive, the process of conducting telehealth sessions becomes instantly more complicated for both myself and my patients. Or if Google referencing its own integrated tools is viewed as anti-competitive, potential patients may no longer be able to see Google reviews of providers when looking them up on Google Maps or Search.
Pursuing blanket policies without a deeper understanding of consequences is counterproductive. These changes require a scalpel, not a chain saw. A competitive market for any industry is important but must not come at the expense of small businesses like mental health providers.
Aaron Weiner
Lake Forest