One day during a summer journalism program in Washington, D.C., six years ago, I was walking around one of the House office buildings when I encountered a group of visitors.

A man wearing an FDNY baseball hat told me that he and the others were there to lobby for mental-health parity — that is, laws that would require health-insurance companies to provide the same coverage for mental illnesses that they do for physical illnesses.

One bachelor’s degree, an internship, a first job and half of a master’s degree later, Congress has finally acted.

The House and Senate passed different versions of a bill to “bar insurance plans from charging disparate deductibles and co-payments for mental-health services compared with other medical benefits,” according to The Wall Street Journal (via World of Psychology).

But the legislation still needs to be worked out — and it’s full of loopholes, as World of Psychology points out:

Stuck in both plans is an easy out, however: a good ol’ “Cost Exemption” clause. This clause basically says that mental health parity need not apply to any health plan if the costs of providing mental health parity exceed 2% in the first year, or 1% in any subsequent year. In other words, we like mental health parity as long as it doesn’t cost us anything.

There’s also controversy over whether the bill should cover all conditions listed in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, including substance abuse. The House version says yes; the Senate version says no.

The House requirement could backfire, one lawmaker said, according to the Associated Press:

Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., complained the House bill would mandate coverage for such conditions as jet lag and sexual dysfunction that are listed in the psychiatric association’s manual. “Can you imagine any employer being willing to cover things like that?” said Gingrey, a doctor.

Maybe it’s time for the man in the baseball hat and his friends to pay their representatives another visit.