Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) and his father, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), are butting heads over differing versions of legislation seeing parity coverage for addiction and mental-health disorders, the New York Times reported March 19.

Rep. Kennedy has loudly called for sweeping legislation requiring insurers to treat addiction and mental illness on par with other illnesses, saying, "We can't cut any deals with insurance companies. We need to strengthen the Senate bill."

The Senate bill is his father's measure, crafted in consultation with the insurance industry as well as mental-health advocates. Sen. Kennedy's measure has been endorsed by business and insurance groups -- a first for this kind of bill -- and the elder Kennedy said he is taking a pragmatic approach to getting the measure passed.

The Senate bill recently was cleared by subcommittee, but support for the House bill also is strong: about 60 percent of House members endorse it. But business interests are not fans. "The House bill is everything that we did not like in previous mental health parity bills," said E. Neil Trautwein of the National Retail Federation.

America's Health Insurance Plans, which represents 1,300 insurers, prefers the Senate bill; most mental-health groups endorse both measures. The House version defines a "minimum scope of coverage" that health plans must provide if mental-health coverage is offered; the Senate bill does not spell out any minimums.

"Congress is covered, under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, for the treatment of mental illnesses as defined by the medical community," said Rep. Kennedy. "If it's good enough for members of Congress, it should be good enough for the American public. The Senate bill leaves the definition up to whatever is negotiated between the insurer and the employer."

Kennedy worries, for example, that some insurers would decide not to pay for addiction treatment services or other conditions.

Forty-two states have passed parity laws, but while the House bill stipulates that the federal law will not override state laws that provide greater benefits, the Senate bill would supersede differing state laws.