Mental health and substance abuse benefits are provided at a much lower level than insurance for general medical care. Many view this fact as discriminatory. One reason for this is the fact that insurers worry about attracting really expensive people to their health plans. People with disorders and chronic conditions like an eating disorder or opiate addiction, face immense year to year costs in recovery.
Parity is viewed as a way to provide important financial protection for people with these disorders. Many supporters contest that insurance companies have treated the brain with significantly less importance than other body parts. But is an increase in treatment coverage really the answer? Perhaps, regarding substance abuse, the increased ability for affordable treatment will lower the number of people who physically quit their addiction. And with the controversy surrounding the over-diagnosing of mental illnesses, would this provision be abused?
Despite the many issues that surface in respect to mental health and substance abuse parity, it should be recognized that substance abuse and other psychiatric disturbances are major health problems that affect millions of people. It is clear that these disorders should be treated just as important as other health conditions.
2 comments:
It is nice to have someone who takes interest in the same topic! Keep up the good work.
I definitely can see the side of the insurance companies, but they should still cover these mental disorders. Some questions I have formed-
Are there certain exceptions, or are no mental illnesses covered?
Do some states/insurance companies cover them?
This is an interesting topic, I look forward to getting some more details.
Post a Comment