The protection coverage in the United States has failed to provide adequate assistance of mental health illnesses. Deductibles, day cutoff criteria, and co-protection all show disparities in mental health and substance use disorder inclusion. Many states passed equality laws that included psychological well-being protection as a key component in an effort to close the gap. To be in compliance with the Mental Health Parity Act, all guarantors who provide coverage for emotional well-being benefits must also give similar yearly and lifetime protection benefits for other illnesses. Despite this, the Mental Parity Act has run into a few bumps along the way. These studies offer convincing evidence of protective measures in mental health parity that go against the grain. The differences include higher reimbursement rates for medically necessary office visits than for office visits for social well-being, as well as differences in inpatient use between patients who are psychologically healthy and those who have clinical or severe diseases. Inconsistencies put patients at a disadvantage while trying to get the care they need. Patients with mental health difficulties cannot receive the full spectrum of medical care administrations because of excessive protection rules and insufficient monitoring of care procedures.
Annotated Bibliography
Friedman, S. A., Thalmayer, A. G., Azocar, F., Xu, H., Harwood, J. M., Ong, M. K. & Ettner, S. L. (2018). The mental health parity and addiction equity act evaluation study: impact on mental health financial requirements among commercial “carve‐in” plans. Health Services Research, 53(1), 366-388.
This study looks at the long-term impacts of parity on copayments, coinsurance, and deductibles, building on previous research that focused on the immediate consequences. Outpatient cost-sharing decreased modestly due to MHPAEA; nevertheless, minor but statistically significant increases in inpatient and intermediate coinsurance were also detected. Because many plans’ cost-sharing levels were already at parity before MHPAEA was implemented. MHPAEA may have increased relative generosity of specialty BH care coverage rather than absolute generosity, and it is reasonable to conclude that MHPAEA did not significantly reduce cost-sharing for MH services. Based on this knowledge, the research shows that the goal of MH policy may change from achieving parity with medical benefits to decreasing the increase of cost-sharing for all health treatments without affecting accessibility.
Barry, C. L., & Huskamp, H. A. (2011). Moving beyond parity—mental health and addiction care under the ACA. The New England Journal of Medicine, 365(11), 973.
The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act was enacted in 2008 and became law. People who suffer from mental health and addiction issues such as depression, anxiety, psychoses, and drug misuse will be better cared for due to this law. The Mental Health Parity Act mandates that insurance companies cover behavioral health in the same way they provide medical and surgical care for their customers’ health conditions. The Mental Health Parity Act is delivered in part thanks to the Affordable Care Act. Mental health and addiction problems must be covered as part of the benefits package given by Medicaid, benchmark plans, and state-based insurance marketplaces under the Affordable Care Act. Even with the ACA’s involvement in Medicaid and state-based insurance exchange plans, those who participate in employer-sponsored programs that do not include a mental health benefits package still have limited access to mental health care. The Mental Health Parity Act, which is part of the ACA, emphasizes the significance of increasing behavioral health coverage and paves the way for further progress.
Beronio, K., Glied, S., & Frank, R. (2014). How did the Affordable Care Act and Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act greatly expand coverage of behavioral health care? The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 41(4), 410-428.
More than 60 million Americans will be covered by mental health and drug use disorder benefits and federal parity safeguards due to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA’s essential health benefits clause, which mandates mental health and drug use disorder services to be covered equally with basic medical insurance, is critical to this growth. Preventive treatments and annual and lifetime coverage limitations, as well as bans on prior exclusions and those related to network adequacy, are other ACA measures that should make treatment more accessible. According to the ACA, states have more leeway in extending Medicaid to include supportive services for those with severe mental health issues, in addition to the primary health care provided at parity. Due to the ACA’s numerous new standards and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA).
Dave, D., & Mukerjee, S. (2011). Mental health parity legislation, cost‐sharing, and substance abuse treatment admissions. Health Economics, 20(2), 161-183.
In this study, researchers found that drug addiction therapy was both successful and cost-efficient compared to other methods of drug management. Furthermore, it appears that the gulf between people who use drugs heavily and those who are admitted to treatment has grown wider over the last decade. In other words, looking at economic factors that influence the flow of people into treatment for substance abuse is critical from a policy perspective. In addition to the lack of supply, many drug abusers cite the high expense and difficulty in accessing treatment as major deterrents from seeking help.
According to state insurance parity legislation examination, regulations mandating broad parity for SA and mental health treatment are linked to an increase in the overall number of self-referred treatment admissions. This highlights the significance of cost-sharing as a result of such laws, it is more likely that admission will be privately insured while the chances of uninsured admission are reduced. The crowding-out of public insurance assistance does not appear to occur. However, this is not the case for charity treatment and non-payment where some crowding out does exist. Those that support comprehensive parity see an increase in treatment admissions and cost-sharing, whereas states that do not help complete equality see no such increase.
Gregory K. Fritz, M. a. (2012). The long road ahead to mental health parity. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 458-460.
Mental health benefits were included in medical coverage and were not subject to the same denials until recently. When their child was diagnosed with a mental health condition, many parents discovered benefits loopholes preventing them from getting the care they needed. The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2011 was signed into law by President Barack Obama. This bill was enacted to make electronic medical records standard across all hospitals and practitioners. The advantage that the statute gave was open to all doctors, including psychiatrists and institutions. The absence of mental health parity was the reason for this exclusion of mental health services. The goal of achieving mental health parity is to improve the quality of care available to all people. The principle of treating each person with dignity and respect in our health care system dictates that no distinction should be made between brain and other body system diseases.
Winkelman, T. N., Kieffer, E. C., Goold, S. D., Morenoff, J. D., Cross, K., & Ayanian, J. Z. (2016). Health insurance trends and access to behavioral healthcare among justice-involved individuals—the United States, 2008–2014. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 31(12), 1523-1529.
After the 2010 adoption of the requirement for dependent coverage, the study revealed that the uninsurance rates for persons aged 19–25 years had significantly decreased in the United States among non-elderly justice-involved adults. After the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, subsidized private insurance, and individual mandate in 2014, the number of justice-involved persons without health insurance dropped significantly. Among justice-involved persons, Medicaid coverage was linked to increased mental health and SUD treatment rates, but overall treatment rates for SUD remained low, according to pooled studies. According to these findings, people who have been engaged in the judicial system are more likely to be covered by the ACA’s health insurance provisions. However, they may still have difficulty accessing treatment for certain mental health disorders. According to previous research, uninsured drug users who had recently been involved in the legal system had decreased in number. Despite historically low levels of uninsured people in the justice-involved community, the study discovered that their rates are still much higher than the general public’s.
Klonsky, E. D., May, A. M., & Saffer, B. Y. (2016). Suicide, suicide attempts, and suicidal ideation. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 307-330.
One of the leading causes of mortality and disability globally is suicidal conduct. However, current advances in suicide theory and research indicate that this understanding and prevention will improve. As a result of this ideation-to-action approach, it is now clear that developing suicidal thoughts and then attempting suicide are two different occurrences, each with unique causes and predictions. Another important discovery is the expanding amount of research that distinguishes between suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts risk factors.
Depression, hopelessness, most mental illnesses, and even impulsivity now predispose people to suicidal thoughts. Yet, these traits cannot tell apart those who’ve tried suicide from those who’ve contemplated it. Another method for stopping the development from concept to effort is by restricting one’s options. As a third significant development, there is an increase in theories of suicide that are part of an ideation-to-action continuum. Interpersonal theory, motivational-volitional integration model, and three-step theory are examples of these. Suicide prevention and research may and should benefit from these viewpoints in the future.
Shana, A. (2020). Mental health parity in the US: Have We Made Any Real Progress?
Many Americans are forced to choose between their physical and mental health due to their insurance plans’ exorbitant costs. Unequal distribution of healthcare providers in the system undermines patients’ ability to take care of themselves and is immoral. Morality is one’s code of conduct that dictates how one should treat others. It would demonstrate the government’s humanity by providing mental health services to citizens, recognizing the need for medical attention beyond basic physical requirements. Since the US economy comprises individuals, when those individuals are in difficulty, so will the country’s economy. There is a growing problem in the United States concerning mental health care and the patients who receive it. Because of inadequate insurance coverage, a shortage of providers, and a lack of coordination among healthcare providers, Americans have difficulty accessing mental health treatment.
Mulvaney-Day, N., Gibbons, B. J., Alikhan, S., & Karakus, M. (2019). Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act and outpatient behavioral health services in the United States, 2005–2016. American Journal of Public Health, 109(S3), S190-S196.
MHPAEA showed a strong correlation with outpatient treatment for mental and drug use disorders. According to the results of a breakdown of spending, MHPAEA-related spending increased mainly due to higher usage. There was no evidence that the rise in treatment for opioid use disorder was solely responsible for the increase in expenditure for nonopioid drug use disorder treatments. Those with big group employer-sponsored insurance covered by MHPAEA are more likely to seek outpatient mental and drug use disorder services.
Choudhry, F. R., Mani, V., Ming, L. C., & Khan, T. M. (2016). Beliefs and perception about mental health issues: A meta-synthesis. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 12, 2807.
Beyond normalcy, stress, and traumatic experience, the significance of social support was again underscored in this episode. Analyses of this qualitative research found cultural parallels and variations in the causes and descriptions of mental illnesses, spanning from spiritual to medical and from social to psychological ones. People’s preferences for treatment techniques differed from group to group and included scientific and non-scientific approaches. Because of the significance of different cultural values, research like this might be beneficial to psychotherapists when creating treatment programs for their patients. The study’s findings may aid policymakers in initiating campaigns to raise awareness of biopsychosocial causes and treatments of mental illnesses among the general public and in health and educational settings.