PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 5, 2019
Mental Health Parity Compliance Act
This bill revises the mental health parity rules to require private health insurance plans that offer both medical and mental health coverage to prepare a comparative analysis of nonquantitative treatment limitations (NQTLs). (NQTLs are limitations on the scope or duration of benefits for treatment, such as preauthorization requirements.) The comparative analysis must be available for the Department of Health and Human Services upon request and must include (1) a description of the NQTL and the specific services to which it applies, (2) the factors used to determine when the NQTL will apply, and (3) a description of how the NQTLs applicable to mental health or substance use disorder benefits are comparable to, and no more stringent than, the NQTLs applicable to medical or surgical benefits, among other information.
People & committees
Sen. Murphy, Christopher [D-CT] · D–CT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
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.
Analyze S.1737 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.
Examine S.1737 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.
Examine S.1737 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.
Examine S.1737 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.