Mental illness and substance abuse including alcohol and drugs illicit are primarily drives of disability and premature death. The accessibility and quality of treatments for mental disorders have long been questioned.in its decreasing disorder incidence (primary prevention) , decreasing the duration of a disorder. efforts to cover them equitably have long been stymied by misperceptions and monetary concerns due to its intangible nature both mental disorders and mental hospitals’ use of seclusion and restraint, including chemicals that render patients drowsy and inactive in treatment process and Employer-based health plans have long set stricter treatment limits and higher out-of-pocket costs on mental health care than on medical care.
Mental health reform has almost always been incremental. Windows of opportunity open from time to time which allow change to occur. Often these windows open when there is a political imperative to ‘do something’, driven by a sense of crisis and an urgency to address a problem, especially when the problem and its consequences are being repeatedly highlighted in the media.Click here to receive assistance in this and other related assignments
Advocacy organizations such as Mental Health America and the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill promote the pass of federal parity legislation to end discrimination in mental health insurance discrimination and the awareness to public that mental disorder should be treated equally with physical illness. Although a federal parity bill was passed in 1996, that law only provides parity for annual and lifetime dollar limits. Most employers comply with the law but violate the spirit of it by erecting new barriers, such as higher co-pays, to replace the ones that the law ruled out. The proposed Mental Health Parity Act of 2007 requires health insurance plans that offer mental health coverage to provide the benefits at the same coverage level as medical and surgical services, extend parity to deductibles, out-of-pocket expenses, co-payments, coinsurance, hospital stays and outpatient visits. But the bill provides a number of means through which employers could opt out. For example, employers would not be required to provide mental health coverage, but those that do would have to provide it on the same footing as medical and surgical coverage. Additionally, the bill does not apply to companies that employ 50 or fewer workers, although the same condition holds true in the House bill. Also, a 2 percent provision would allow employers whose costs go up by more than 2 percent as a result of complying with the law to seek a waiver or an exemption.
When it comes to health care, the most innovative measures often bubble up from the state level, and mental health parity is no exception.5 states–Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon and Vermont–have comprehensive parity laws that apply to all mental health and substance abuse disorders under private insurance plans, with no exemptions. In other states, parity often applies only to select groups, such as people with severe mental illness or state and local employees. Where some states might only cover a few mental health disorders, Connecticut and Vermont cover all mental illnesses covered in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is considered to be the handbook for mental illness and substance abuse diagnosis categories for both children and adults. Also, unlike the Senate’s proposed parity law, Vermont and Connecticut do not exempt companies with 50 or fewer workers. Click here to receive assistance in this and other related assignments