Mental Health Parity is included in the bailout bill the Senate passed

[MikeWaters]

The bill would not require employers or health plans to cover mental illness or drug or alcohol abuse. But if they do, the treatment limits and financial requirements could be no more restrictive than those that apply to medical or surgical benefits. A 1996 law had required parity in setting annual and lifetime spending limits, but insurers found ways to circumvent it. The new bill closes loopholes by requiring parity in deductibles, co-payments and out-of-pocket expenses — and in setting treatment limitations, such as the maximum number of doctor visits and days of coverage allowed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/opinion/01wed3.html

FYI.

[Mormon Red Death]

so I guess you are for the bailout now...

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

so I guess you are for the bailout now...

No. I am against the bailout. I think mental health parity should be considered separately.

The wooden arrows issue should be considered separately as well. If considered at all.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/opinion/01wed3.html

FYI.

"clingon" has to do with the financial crisis? That's the problem, congress is ADD. They can't focus on just one thing.

Mental health? Great. The teenage son of Southwick (the biggest con artist in Utah history) is having 'mental' health issues because he can no longer drive his BMW and buy whatever he wants since his daddy is in the clinger and they have to sell their multimillion dollar home in Ogden. But he's mentally ill!

[MikeWaters]

Mental health parity, here we go.

This will be a boon to substance abuse treatment especially, as it is currently hard to find in an affordable fashion.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Mental health parity, here we go.

This will be a boon to substance abuse treatment especially, as it is currently hard to find in an affordable fashion.

Why won't they just stop all MH coverage?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

Why won't they just stop all MH coverage?

That's my guess. Insurers don't like it at all.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by creekster

Why won't they just stop all MH coverage?

Based on the pithy summations I have read, it's ok not to have MH coverage as long as you also have no non-MH coverage.

So if you don't cover hospitalization for illness or injury, it's ok not to cover it for mental health. But if you do cover it for non-mental reasons, you also have to cover it for mental reasons.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Based on the pithy summations I have read, it's ok not to have MH coverage as long as you also have no non-MH coverage.

So if you don't cover hospitalization for illness or injury, it's ok not to cover it for mental health. But if you do cover it for non-mental reasons, you also have to cover it for mental reasons.

Here's what the articel you linked said:

The bill would not require employers or health plans to cover mental illness or drug or alcohol abuse. But if they do, the treatment limits and financial requirements could be no more restrictive than those that apply to medical or surgical benefits.

That's all I know, but it sounds like they could just avoid offering any MH benefit and still comply eiht the law. If so, my guess is this is what will happen.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by creekster

Here's what the articel you linked said:



That's all I know, but it sounds like they could just avoid offering any MH benefit and still comply eiht the law. If so, my guess is this is what will happen.

Yeah I think you are right. Read another article.

Wonderful, less mental health and substance abuse coverage in the future.

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/disp...le/10168/49416

The rise of cash-only psychiatric practices will continue full-force.