Mental Health

The Mental Health Parity Act of 2007: An Analysis of the Proposed Changes presents a policy analysis of the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007. It focuses mainly on the impact of the new legislation in comparison to the existing state parity laws. 54 million Americans are impacted by mental health issues each year costing the United States nearly $100 billion dollars annually (Marth, 2009). In relation to mental health coverage prior to the new legislations, individuals did not receive coverage similar to physical and medical/surgical treatments (Marth, 2009). As a result of inadequate treatment, this particular population can experience unhealthy lifestyles and habits. The cost of mental health services and treatment can be extremely expensive including coy-payments, treatment visits, and deductibles. However, this article diligently informs the readers about the results of the proposed changes to this act. There is a common dispute about the limited access to the services that is provided to this group of individuals. The author further discusses the process of parity for both coverage and access. The Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 was known as the last piece of legislation that was implemented to address the issue of unequal coverage between mental health and other medical/surgical procedures (Marth, 2009). It was passed on September 26, 1996, as an amendment to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act also known as HIPPA (Marth, 2009). It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton and took effect on January 1, 1998. The purpose of this act is to allow equal coverage but was not mandated (Marth, 2009). This means that states were allowed to comply only with minimum standards. The hardship of this amendment is that it did not require equality for other aspects of mental health care coverage such as co-payments, the frequency of treatments and the number of visits. Dean Marth made an explicit thesis that she believes that the access to mental health care can play a major role in whether mental health patients receive needed treatment. The author has a noticeable axe to grind because she not only talks about the importance of coverage for this particular special population but the different categories of parity and the impact it has. The author examines the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 leading up to the most current act of 2007. During the analyzing of this policy, she elaborates on equal coverage not being mandated and the disadvantages some patients have depending on the state they live in. Each state had different variations of what parity laws they implemented. As stated in the 2007 National Conference of State Legislatures, twenty-six states have adopted the legislation addressing the issues of full parity. Before …show more content…
When it comes to mental health, I can make a personal connection because of my older sibling’s daily struggle with his current mental illness. Within my discipline and course, this topic intertwines with psychology, health care, and political relations. This topic is connected to psychology because mental health is a psychological disorder that is affiliated with biological mechanisms and other factors. Health Care related because it is the process of improving one’s health with the use of diagnosis, treatment, and preventive techniques. Nevertheless, political relations and politics play a role in new laws and legislations that are …show more content…
The first category is “parity” as stated in the article they “require insurers to provide the same level of benefits for mental illness, serious mental illness or substance abuse as for other physical disorders and diseases. These benefits include visit limit, deductibles, copayments, and annual limits” (Marth, 2009). States that comply with this category of parity are considered as ‘Full parity” states; during the year of 2007, there were 26 states that were identified to be in this category (Marth, 2009). The second category is minimum mandated benefit laws this requires states to provide some level of coverage for mental illness, serious mental illness, and substance abuse. States that comply with this specific category are not considered as full parity because of the level of benefits disparity between mental and physical illnesses. Nevertheless, the third category, mandated offering laws requires no mandate of equal benefits. The states that fall under this law of parity will offer consumers the option to buy mental health coverage for an additional price (Marth,