The reform package requires insurers to provide sufficient cover to sick children – even with current illnesses.

The news comes as health insurance companies in the US have stopped providing child-only insurance policies, because they’re worried parents will wait until their child actually falls ill before they get insurance.

“It’s necessary to keep insurance rates down,” state insurance commissioner for Oklahoma, Kim Holland commented.

The commissioner’s comments come as some insurance companies have expressed their concern about going out of business and harming current policy holders.

The only types of coverage that are likely to be affected are new requests. Existing policies and group plans will remain unaffected – which is good news for people who are currently on one of these plans.

Yet despite this, the White House doesn’t agree. A spokesman for Health and Human Services said they were disappointed a few insurance companies have decided to stop providing child-only insurance policies.

The full and final regulations regarding children’s insurance coverage are due for publication on or before 23^rd September 2010.

Two of the brothers involved in the case escaped jail sentences as they were declared to be mentally unfit to stand trial. Having committed sex attacks against minors, the pair managed to avoid a custodial sentence through a loophole in the law.

Campaigners argue that this case is a prime example where the Mental Health Order can allegedly be abused to enable criminals to effectively get away with their crimes by using the protection of this particular legislation. It is not a call to revoke the Mental Health Order, but growing calls to amend it have caused both the Health Minister and the Justice Minister to address this issue and speculate that changes to the law are imminent.

Whether this is a matter for the Department of Health or Justice is not completely clear. What is apparent is that the more cases highlighted in which current mental health legislation appears to be used for the benefit of criminals, the more pressure the Government will come under to make changes.

It is vital that the Mental Health Order continues to protect vulnerable individuals. Negative press surrounding mental health issues are all too common and a misinformed public is in danger of calling for repeal when it is reform that is required.

Furthermore, consumers with private individual health insurance who were already entitled to appeal a decision made by their insurance provider found this to be a lengthy and difficult process. It was not a straightforward issue at all and they couldn’t sue for damages for consequential pain, illness or injury of delayed or denied treatment.

While currently all health insurance firms are obliged to have an internal review process, researchers have found that more often than not the firm’s original decision is maintained. Add to that the complicated multi-layered processes consumers must go through in order to make an appeal and it can be easy to see why some argue that internal appeals can be unfair and biased.

Come autumn and that is set to change. Now every consumer with a health insurance plan will be able to make appeal through an independent review system operated at state level. However, suing for damages won’t be any less difficult; a point which has fallen heavily on those hoping for more drastic reforms.

Many states already operate a review system, although these new health law reforms will make this process available to US citizens in every state. Needless to say there will be much discussion in the coming months leading up to the enactment of these health law reforms, and in assessment of their effects in the coming months and years after they come into effect.