Mental Health Parity Enforcement and Funding Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Kean, Thomas H. [R-NJ-7]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 30, 2026
Bottom line
H.R. 9551 establishes new civil monetary penalties for violations of mental health and substance use disorder parity laws and provides dedicated funding for their enforcement.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to authorize the Secretary of Labor to impose civil monetary penalties on plan sponsors, service providers, plan administrators, or issuers for failing to meet mental health and substance use disorder parity requirements. It also appropriates $30 million annually for fiscal years 2027 through 2031 to the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) to enforce these parity requirements.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that existing mental health parity laws, while well-intentioned, lack sufficient enforcement mechanisms, leading to widespread non-compliance by health plans. They contend that civil monetary penalties will provide a strong deterrent against violations, ensuring that individuals receive equitable coverage for mental health and substance use disorder treatment, thereby improving access to care and reducing health disparities. The dedicated funding for EBSA is seen as crucial for effective oversight.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that imposing additional civil monetary penalties could increase administrative burdens and costs for health plans and employers, potentially leading to higher premiums or reduced benefits. They may also contend that existing enforcement mechanisms, while perhaps underutilized, are sufficient and that further penalties could disincentivize offering comprehensive health coverage. Some might also question the specific appropriation amount or its allocation.
The bill is concise and straightforward, making it highly accessible for a quick review by interested parties.
Section 2(a)
Establishes Civil Monetary Penalties for Mental Health Parity Violations
This section amends Section 502(c)(10) of ERISA to allow the Secretary of Labor to impose civil monetary penalties on group health plan sponsors, service providers, administrators, or issuers who fail to comply with mental health and substance use disorder parity requirements under Section 712(a) of ERISA. Previously, this section primarily covered genetic information non-discrimination violations, and this amendment expands its scope.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision closes a critical enforcement gap, providing the Department of Labor with a powerful tool to ensure compliance with mental health parity laws, which have historically been difficult to enforce effectively.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this adds an unnecessary layer of punitive measures, potentially increasing compliance costs for plans and leading to a more litigious environment, which could ultimately harm employers and plan participants through higher costs.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for stronger enforcement of mental health parity laws against potential increased administrative burdens and costs for health plans and employers.
Section 2(b)
Clarifies Secretary's Enforcement Authority for Parity Violations
This section amends ERISA Section 502(a)(6) and 502(b)(3) to explicitly allow the Secretary of Labor to enforce Section 712 (mental health parity requirements) through the newly established civil monetary penalties. This clarifies that the general prohibition on the Secretary enforcing certain provisions does not apply to mental health parity violations under the new penalty structure, ensuring the legal soundness of the enforcement mechanism.
Section 2(c)
Sets Effective Date for New Penalties
This provision stipulates that the amendments establishing civil monetary penalties for parity violations will apply to group health plans and health insurance issuers for plan years beginning one year after the date of enactment of this Act. This provides a grace period for plans to adjust their practices and ensure compliance before the new enforcement regime takes effect.
Section 3
Appropriates Funds for Enforcement of Mental Health Parity
This section appropriates $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2031 to the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA). These funds are specifically designated to carry out the enforcement of mental health parity requirements under ERISA, including those established by the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 and the new provisions of this Act.
This clause retains the existing civil monetary penalties for failures related to genetic information non-discrimination, specifically referencing various subsections of Section 702 and Section 701 of ERISA.
Section 2(a)(2)(B)(i)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for amending existing statutes by incorporating new provisions while maintaining or clarifying old ones through precise legal citations.
Case for: Supporters would argue that maintaining and clarifying these penalties ensures continued protection against genetic discrimination in health plans, aligning with existing federal policy and preventing any unintended weakening of these protections.
Case against: No specific opposition to maintaining these existing genetic information protections is typically raised, as they generally enjoy broad bipartisan support.
Estimated impact: Continues existing protections, with potential financial penalties for violations, but no new fiscal impact beyond current law.
This clause specifically targets "subsection (a) of section 712" of ERISA as the basis for the new civil monetary penalties related to mental health and substance use disorder benefits. Section 712(a) outlines the general parity requirements.
Section 2(a)(2)(B)(ii)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to precisely define the scope of new enforcement powers by referencing specific statutory sections, ensuring legal clarity and avoiding ambiguity.
Case for: Proponents would highlight that this specific reference ensures the penalties are directly tied to the core parity requirements, leaving no ambiguity about what constitutes a violation subject to the new enforcement.
Case against: No specific opposition to this precise referencing, though general opposition to the penalties would apply.
Estimated impact: Defines the scope of new enforcement, potentially leading to increased compliance and penalties for violations of the core parity requirements.