Colorado and Washington approved provisions paving the way for legal recreational marijuana usage in their states. The laws will be an interesting consideration of conflict of laws because marijuana remains illegal under Federal law and might introduce new twists into the Affordable Care Act over time.
Currently the Affordable Care Act provides for only two kinds of insureds who can be charged more in premium payments, those who are old and those who use tobacco. In 2014 when essential health benefit provisions come into play, it appears that those individuals suffering from addiction to any other substance, aside from tobacco products, will not be charged extra premiums UNLESS that person is also old.
Here’s why. The Affordable Care Act expands the protections afforded those utilizing mental health services that are covered by the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 which provides that if a plan provides for mental health services coverage for those services must be covered to the same extent as other medical and surgical procedures, removing former limitations that limited coverage.
Under Affordable Care, in 2014, under section 1302 (b)(1)(E), mental health and substance abuse disorders, including behavioral health treatment, become part of the essential health benefits plans must include. All qualified plans will have to include provision for mental health services and in accordance with the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 that coverage will have to cover substance abuse treatments and preventive services.
Conceivably, under current Federal law, if the Feds decide not to go after the new laws in Colorado and Washington so that residents do not face the complication of legal troubles stemming from substance abuse, tobacco users will pay more in health insurance premiums than potheads, much as other addicts including those suffering from alcoholism or meth addiction will pay less in insurance premiums than a tobacco user, especially if that tobacco user is old.
While tobacco is bad, the widespread coverage of essential health benefits with the arbitrary delineation of being old or using tobacco as the only two ways a plan can legitimately charge higher premiums seems a bit discriminatory. I anticipate that over time greater exceptions to the non-discriminatory sections of the Act will continue to be carved out.
