PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2972-2973)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 27, 2003
Senator Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2003 - Amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Public Health Service Act to prohibit certain employee group health plans or related insurances providing both medical-surgical and mental health benefits from imposing mental health treatment limitations or financial requirements unless comparable limitations and requirements are imposed upon medical-surgical benefits. States that the foregoing shall not be construed as requiring a group health plan (or related insurances) to: (1) provide any mental health benefits; (2) prevent the medical management of mental health benefits; or (3) require the provision of specific mental health services, except to the extent that failure to provide such services would result in a disparity between the coverage of mental health and medical-surgical benefits.Exempts specified small employers from such requirements.Requires that, in the case of a group health plan that offers a participant or beneficiary two or more benefit package options, the coverage requirements shall be applied separately with respect to each such option.Provides that, in the case of a plan or insurance providing in-network mental health benefits, out-of-network mental health benefits need not be provided at parity to medical-surgical benefits, as long as in-network mental health benefits are provided at parity with medical-surgical benefits and the plan or insurance provides reasonable access to in-network providers and facilities.Requires a General Accounting Office study of such requirements' effects upon health insurance costs, access, and quality and a cost estimation of extending such requirements to the treatment of substance abuse and chemical dependency.
People & committees
Sen. Domenici, Pete V. [R-NM] · R–NM
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. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2972-2973)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2971-2972)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 18, 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.486 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.486 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.486 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.486 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.