Improving the Quality of Mental and Substance Use Health Care Act of 2009
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 12, 2009
Improving the Quality of Mental and Substance Use Health Care Act of 2009 - Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to: (1) establish the Commission for Evidence-Based Mental and Substance Use Health Care; (2) convene an interagency collaborative group to coordinate mental health and substance use services and primary care services; (3) change Medicaid reimbusement rules to cover same-day visits for primary care services and mental health and substance use services; (4) implement a plan for ensuring that Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) activities promote health information technology that is accessible and pertinent to mental health and substance use health care providers and consumers; and (5) establish the Council on the Mental Health and Substance Use Health Care Workforce.
Requires the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to make grants for a network of national centers of excellence in mental health and substance use health care.
Requires specified federal programs that provide mental health and substance use care to pay for peer support and illness self-management programs and provide for appropriate payment and coverage reforms.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Read full official summaryShow less
Directs the Secretary to develop uniform methodologies related to payments for mental illnesses and substance use disorders.
Requires the Comptroller General to study the use of publicly-supported mental health and addiction services by individuals with private health insurance coverage.
Directs the Secretary to establish a five-year project to demonstrate the impact of creating delivery and financing structures that deliver high-quality, integrated, mental health and substance use health care.
Amends title XIX (Medicaid) of the Social Security Act to require states to prohibit discrimination against patients being treated for, or health care providers providing treatment for, any medical condition, illness, or injury involving intoxication as a result of alcohol or other substance.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.2369 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.2369 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.2369 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.2369 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.