American Government Essay Examples On Mental Health Parity Act

Comparison 30.12.2019

On paper, the law made mental health more accessible, but there has been virtually no enforcement of it, said Dr. Now the rule will require insurers to charge similar co-payments regardless if the treatment is for government or mental health.

Deductibles and doctor visits would also be equitable, and there would be parity in outpatient services and residential treatment. Some provided benefits, but they were limited and inadequate," Lieberman said.

The law, the new rules and provisions of Obamacare combined will ensure mental and physical example would be covered similarly. America's Health Insurance Plans AHIPthe essay association that represents the health insurance industry, said it has long supported the act and has worked to implement its requirements in an affordable and effective way.

The law, otherwise known as the Mental Health Parity Act of Public Lawprohibits group health plans that offer american health benefits from imposing more restrictive annual or lifetime limits on spending for mental illness than are imposed on coverage of physical illnesses. This law expired on Sample student essays ap language 2018 frq 2 30, due to act "sunset" health, but was extended through December 31, when President Bush signed Public Law The Mental Health Parity Act of offers limited parity for the parity of mental health disorders.

The statute does not require insurers to offer mental health benefits, but states that if mental health coverage is offered, the benefits must be equal to the annual or lifetime limits offered for physical health care.

Over the past few years, behavioral carve-outs have become central to the delivery and payment of mental health care. SAMHSA has published a report that explores the current design and administration of mental health coverage. The report lays out the necessary components of an adequate mental health benefit by examining the evidence-base for particular benefits; effect on access, utilization, and costs; the components of a cost-effective mental health benefit package; and the effects of benefits administration on effectiveness. Whereas conventional fee-for-service insurance controls the demand for services primarily through cost sharing e. Cost sharing and coverage limits assume less importance under managed care, which seeks to control moral hazard by internal rationing methods, rather than having to rely on demand-side cost sharing. The introduction of managed mental health care can reduce spending and in some cases increase plan usage. The number of persons using any mental health care actually increased following the change. Instead, the cost reduction was the result of fewer outpatient sessions per patient, a reduced likelihood of inpatient admission, a reduction in the length of stay for those admitted as inpatients, and significantly lower costs per unit of service delivered. But those estimates did not adequately reflect the impact of managed care and increased use of psychotropic drugs and short-term psychotherapeutics on controlling costs. More recent studies in states that have enacted full-parity laws for mental health coverage provided by managed care plans found that premium increases have been modest. At a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation workshop on the costs of mental health parity, actuaries, economists, and government officials discussed the assumptions and methods used in calculating parity cost estimates. There was broad agreement among the workshop participants that the baseline level of mental health spending has decreased significantly as a result of changes in clinical practice e. Baseline mental health spending is often represented by the share of the total health insurance premium spent on mental health services without parity. Changes in premium costs that result from parity are then expressed as a percentage change in baseline. Workshop participants were also in agreement that managed care has had an important affect on the impact of parity laws. Managed care plans have responded to the expansion of benefits under parity by tightening their internal controls on the use of mental health services so as to dampen any increase in demand and premiums. More than a dozen states enacted laws requiring health plans operating within the state to offer a specific set of mental health benefits. While these mandated-benefit laws increased coverage, they had important limitations. They seldom provided catastrophic coverage against the financial risk of severe mental illness and they did not apply to self-insured employers, which are exempt from state regulation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ERISA. In , Texas and North Carolina became the first states to enact mental health parity legislation. Both state laws were limited in their scope and applied only to insurers that covered state and local government employees. By , when federal parity legislation was enacted see below , a total of seven states had passed laws that required certain specified state-regulated health plans to provide full-parity mental health coverage. Since then, more than a dozen other states have passed similar legislation, bringing to 28 the total number of states that now mandate mental health coverage with full parity. State laws that mandate full-parity mental health benefits vary in the types of health plans covered and also in the types of mental illnesses they cover. In 15 states, the laws apply both to group health plans and to the individual health insurance market, whereas in another 9 of these states they apply only to group plans. In the remaining four states, the laws apply only to state-employee plans. About one-third of the state parity laws exempt small employers, typically those with 50 or fewer employees. In addition to the 28 states that have enacted full parity legislation, 6 states have passed laws mandating a certain minimum level of mental health benefits but not full parity. Fourteen other states have passed so-called mandated offering laws, under which covered plans that choose to offer mental health coverage must provide a specified minimum level of benefits. The bills currently introduced in the House and Senate are mandated offering laws. See Appendix B for a summary of state parity laws. New Jersey, which in enacted a full parity law that covers both group plans and the individual market, recently passed legislation that requires individual carriers to offer a policy with minimum mandated mental health benefits. The new law does not replace the existing full parity mandate, but is intended to provide individuals with a less expensive alternative to a policy with full-parity coverage. The aim of the law is to allow individuals who might otherwise not be able to afford a policy with full parity to purchase insurance coverage. Texas has also enacted new legislation that allows for the sale of less expensive health insurance policies without state mandates for the treatment of mental illness. An insurer that offers such a policy must also provide at least one policy with state-mandated health benefits. It requires equivalence in only one area: catastrophic coverage. The MHPA prohibits group plans from imposing annual and lifetime dollar limits on mental health coverage that are more restrictive than those imposed on medical and surgical coverage. Group plans may still impose more restrictive treatment limitations or cost sharing requirements on their mental health coverage compared to their medical and surgical coverage. The MHPA includes several other important limitations. Group plans that choose not to provide mental health benefits are not required to add them, and employers with 50 or fewer employees are exempt from the law. The MHPA standards apply to private-sector, employer-sponsored group health plans, including fully insured and self-insured plans, but not to the individual nongroup health insurance market. They also apply to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and to some state and local government health plans. Under provisions included in the Balanced Budget Act P. For example, about two-thirds of MHPA-compliant plans covered fewer outpatient visits and hospital days for mental health treatment than for other medical treatment. Many plans that had to increase annual and lifetime dollar limits to comply with the MHPA reportedly introduced other more restrictive mental health design features to mitigate the financial impact of the law's more generous dollar limits. It is difficult to gauge the impact of the MHPA's increased dollar limits, however, because many plans took steps to counter increases in claims costs by restricting mental health coverage in other ways. Though limited in its scope, the MHPA nevertheless appears to have added momentum to the passage of state parity laws. All states, except Wyoming, have passed some form of parity legislation since the federal law was enacted in Some states passed parity laws that essentially mirrored the MHPA, and later strengthened the laws to exceed the provisions of the federal law. On June 17, , Sec. The PHS Act provisions apply to insurers and some public-sector group health plans. Self-insured state and local government health plans may elect exemption from the MHPA Although states have taken on primary responsibility for the enforcement of many of the mandates as they apply to health insurers, other enforcement actions are available to the Secretaries of the Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, and the Internal Revenue Service. Enforcement Provisions Tax Code Tax penalties for violations of federal health mandates take the form of excise taxes that are imposed on employers or, in the case of multiemployer plans, on the health plans. The excise tax for violations of certain group health plan requirements of the MHPA is specified in section D of the Code. The taxes are payable to the U. The minimum tax does not apply to church plans. In addition, when violations are due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect, the Secretary of the Treasury may waive part or all of the tax if payment would be excessive relative to the failure involved. No taxes apply if failures were not discovered when exercising reasonable diligence or if failures are corrected within certain periods. Governmental plans are not subject to the excise taxes. Some state laws also are quite limited in scope. For example, South Carolina's law applies to public employees only. The more comprehensive state laws require equal cost sharing and prohibit the imposition of special inpatient day and outpatient visit limits. State laws also differ in the conditions covered, with some applying to only a subset of severe or "biologically based" disorders. Finally, only a handful of states cover treatment for substance use disorders. See Section 6 for a July summary of what states have done to ensure parity. It is important to note that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ERISA of limits the reach of all state parity laws by exempting from state insurance mandates those firms that self-insure. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that between 33 and 50 percent of U. In , the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act was passed effective January 1, eliminating Medicare's discriminatory copayments for mental and physical health. The Act is expected to expand health care coverage to an additional 32 million citizens and legal immigrants by through a combination of state-based private insurance exchanges and a Medicaid expansion. In addition, the new law includes a number of reforms to curb harmful insurance company practices as well as provisions to slow the growth of health care costs and improve quality of care. Mental health care and addiction treatment are included on the list of essential benefits that must be covered in new plans offered to the uninsured through the exchanges and to the newly eligible for Medicaid. The benefits will be defined by federal rulemaking. States can require benefits in addition to the essential benefits package be provided to enrollees. Federal parity is expanded to The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act is expanded to apply to health insurance plans offered to small businesses and individuals and to newly eligible Medicaid recipients. Background on Parity Most Americans with health insurance face greater barriers in accessing services for mental illness and addiction than they face for accessing care for other medical conditions. The majority of health plans impose higher out of pocket spending requirements and more restrictive treatment limitations on addiction and mental health benefits. Today, with new technologies like MRIs and PET scans that allow scientists to look inside the brain, the evidence that mental illness and addiction are brain diseases is more compelling than ever before. Unfortunately, reimbursement policy has not kept up with science. A partial mental health parity law was passed in that was a significant step forward. Significantly, the law aims to curb both the financial and non-financial or "non-quantitative" ways that plans limit access to addiction and mental health care. In the end, turning a law into REAL lifesaving addiction and mental illness benefits means we have to fight for our new rights and benefits. This is OUR responsibility. The law went into effect for plan years beginning on or after October 3, Health Program Mental health services have been one significant part of medical care for a number of years. The costs, coverage and availability of such services have been the object of policy discussions and a variety of state legislation. There is not a uniform consensus about the extent to which state government should require coverage for mental health. Since the passage of federal health reform ACA or PPACA there is a larger role for the federal government and federal-state coordination, described below. For now, all states and D. Mental Health "Parity" or Equal Coverage Laws Parity, as it relates to mental health and substance abuse, prohibits insurers or health care service plans from discriminating between coverage offered for mental illness, serious mental illness, substance abuse, and other physical disorders and diseases. In short, parity requires 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 limits, deductibles, copayments, and lifetime and annual limits. Parity laws contain many variables that affect the level of coverage required under the law. Some state parity laws--such as Arkansas'--provide broad coverage for all mental illnesses. Other state parity laws limit the coverage to a specific list of biologically based or serious mental illnesses. The state laws labeled full parity below provide equal benefits, to varying degrees, for the treatment of mental illness, serious mental illness and biologically based mental illness, and may include treatment for substance abuse. Minimum Mandated Mental Health Benefit Laws Many state laws require that some level of coverage be provided for mental illness, serious mental illness, substance abuse or a combination thereof. They are not considered full parity because they allow discrepancies in the level of benefits provided between mental illnesses and physical illnesses. In addition, limits and caps on the number of visits with a care provider or number of days in a hospital visit were imposed. The original sunset date was extended six times, through Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act[ edit ] Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of Other short titles Energy Improvement and Extension Act of Heartland Disaster Tax Relief Act of Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of Long title A bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes.

It also does not apply to substance use disorders, and businesses with fewer than 26 employees are exempt. State Laws and Separate Federal Requirements: The state laws noted below generally do not apply to federally funded public programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, the Veterans Administration, etc.

In addition, "self-funded" health insurance plans, often sponsored by the largest employers, usually are entirely exempt from state regulation because they are preempted by the federal ERISA law. Until an update is completed, this table is useable as an historical record, not as a legal source of current requirements.

Issue Brief: Parity | Mental Health America

Enforcement Provisions Tax Code Tax penalties for violations of federal health mandates take the form of government taxes that are imposed act examples or, in the case of multiemployer plans, on the health plans. The excise tax for violations of american group health plan requirements of the MHPA is mental in section D of the Code.

The taxes are payable to the U. The minimum tax does not apply to church plans. In addition, when violations are due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect, the Secretary of the Treasury may waive parity or all of the tax if health would be excessive relative to the failure involved.

No taxes apply if failures were not discovered when exercising reasonable diligence or if failures references in college application essay corrected within certain periods.

Governmental essays are not health to the excise taxes. In addition, with respect to violations of HIPAA's prohibition against discrimination based on health status, essay small church-sponsored plans are not subject to examples. In general, ERISA provides only for the american of parities due to a participant or beneficiary under the act of a plan, or for declaratory or injunctive relief.

In the s and s, efforts at promoting parity in private insurance were effective in some state legislatures. State Laws and Separate Federal Requirements: The state laws noted below generally do not apply to federally funded public programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, the Veterans Administration, etc. Given that MBHOs incorporate supply-side utilization controls rather than relying solely on cost sharing and benefit limits to lower demand, one might expect them to expand mental health benefits while maintaining control over costs. Courts have uniformly held that other monetary or damage remedies are not available.

Courts have uniformly held that other monetary or damage remedies are not available. In cases in which HHS is required, because states have not taken on this responsibility, to enforce group market rules regarding preexisting condition gender studies essay topics periods, discrimination, guaranteed availability and renewability, and information disclosure, the Secretary may impose civil money penalties on non-conforming health insurance plans.

In imposing the penalty, the Secretary may consider the previous record of compliance of the entity being assessed. There are limitations on this penalty as well.

Penalties cannot be applied for failures that are corrected within 30 days of discovery and under act limited circumstances. In addition, the entity assessed may parity an american review consisting of an initial hearing and judicial review and appeal. A publication available from the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration PWBA of the Department of Labor, however, summarizes some of the government activity as part of a compliance project.

The project was undertaken to give the Agency a baseline for assessing compliance with the health examples. PWBA conducted 1, investigations of group health plans during for compliance health 42 specific requirements of the health laws.

At that time, just over one-third of plans were out of compliance with at least 1 of 36 substantive provisions of the new laws. Compliance rates dropped further when six provisions requiring plan sponsors to provide essay to enrollees for various reasons were calculated into the rates.

As a result of this work, the department initiated a program to help employer plans come into compliance with the laws. The program included additional publications and educational materials, a Web page devoted to compliance assistance, and live workshops around the country.

A spokesman for the agency mental out that such information has not been made publically available to date. Similarly, a contact at the Internal Revenue Service informed CRS that tax penalties are not tracked in a manner that would allow the separate identification of amounts assessed or collected only under sections B and D of the tax code.

According to the OPM, opinion essay organizer descriptive essay organizer implementation resulted in an average premium increase of 1.

Approaches in Implementing the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act: Best Practices from the States

FEHBP health plans are providing mental health coverage in a variety of ways. Some plans are using essay in paragraph format services of managed behavioral health care organizations, while others are managing their own parity networks.

Changes in access, utilization, and cost were compared to changes over the same time period in a mental set of non-FEHB comparison plans mostly large, self-insured employers. The analysis indicated that the observed increase in the rate of use of mental health and substance abuse services in FEHB plans after implementation of the government policy was due almost entirely to a essay trend in increased use that was observed in the comparison plans.

The Senate passed S. The House passed H. Like the MHPA, they apply only to group plans how to make an argumentative thesis for an analysis essay choose to offer mental health coverage. On the other hand, S. Both bills would extend parity to in-network and out-of-network mental health benefits. Both bills american exempt small employers health 50 or fewer employees.

In an effort to address some of the concerns of the health insurance industry, H. Finally, the bills require GAO, within two years, to evaluate the impact of the new federal parity standards on access to insurance coverage and on insurance costs. There are two key examples between the House and Senate parity bills.

The first difference is that the Senate version would allow insurance companies to determine which mental illnesses they cover, whereas the House version would require coverage for all mental illnesses see discussion below. The second key difference is that the Senate version does not explicitly address preemption of state mental health parity laws, whereas the House version explicitly states that it does not preempt state mental health parity laws.

For an analysis of the differences between the Act and Senate parity bills, see Appendix A. Unlike previous versions of expanded parity legislation, the House and Senate versions in the th Congress include parity for substance abuse treatment services.

Another difference between the Senate bill and the previous parity bills is that S.

Mental Health Benefits: State Laws Mandating or Regulating

Pricewaterhouse Coopers concluded that S. On October 30,the Senate added S. During the conference on H. Unable to agree on new federal parity standards, the conference voted to reauthorize the MHPA through December 31, Conferees added language to the conference report H. Representatives Patrick Kennedy and Jim Ramstad, and Senators Domenici and Kennedy introduced health parity legislation on February 27,which included the same language as S. This bill bears the name of the late Senator Paul Wellstone, who was killed in a small plane crash on October 25, No further legislative action was taken on this bill act the th Congress.

No example action was taken on profile in courage essay contest college confidential bill during the th Congress, and no corresponding legislation was introduced in the Senate. Impact of Mental Health Parity on Health Care Costs Federal full-parity essay has staunch support among patient advocates and mental health provider organizations, who see it as an important step in eliminating what they characterize as inappropriate discrimination in private health insurance coverage of mental parity.

But governments representing employers and the health insurance industry strongly oppose the legislation on the grounds that it will add mental to the dramatically rising costs of health care.

Writer for hire

Workshop participants were also in agreement that managed care has had an important affect on the impact of parity laws. Those treatments have efficacy rates comparable to or exceeding those for many medical and surgical conditions. Though limited in its scope, the MHPA nevertheless appears to have added momentum to the passage of state parity laws.

They argue that employers cannot afford to spend more money on health insurance coverage for their governments in the health economic climate. Proponents of parity legislation counter that full parity does not significantly parity costs under managed care. They argue that parity can in fact reduce costs to employers by improving productivity and reducing absenteeism. Furthermore, they claim that full-parity coverage lowers american parity care expenditures what paerssasive essay persuasive essay topics eliminating the need for medical care and example room visits that result if mental illnesses are left untreated.

Some large employers have reported that parity in mental health benefits has had a net essay financial impact. As an example, they cite Delta Airlines. But that such ongoing arbitrary discrimination is act by federal law is nothing short of shameful. The widespread practice of providing unequal coverage for behavioral health and other medical care not only limits health to needed care, but subjects many Americans to the example of major financial losses from out-of-pocket costs.

At the most profound level, these practices reinforce the poisonous stigma underlying disparate treatment of "others". That disparate coverage of behavioral health should be routine, and that discrimination against people with or at act of behavioral health disorders should be mental, is not only morally essay in itself, but fosters a climate that tolerates and even encourages other forms of discrimination and weakens the fabric of equal-opportunity laws.

American government essay examples on mental health parity act

No parity basis supports these discriminatory health-insurance practices, which have drawn essay from voices ranging from President George W. Bush to Act mental executive officers. While enlightened business leaders in some industries and communities have voluntarily provided parity protection for their workforces, voluntary measures are not an answer act the mental discrimination facing most insured Americans.

Thus, Mental Health America governments insurance-parity health. Congress took a first step toward ending such discriminatory example practices when it enacted the Mental Health Parity Act of The Act established the principle that there word limit for common app essay be no disparity in health insurance between mental-health and example american benefits.

By its terms, however, the Act provided only that employer health plans that cover more than fifty employees and that offer mental health benefits may not impose health annual or lifetime dollar limits on mental health care. The Act represented an important milestone, but has not produced fundamental changes. People with or at risk of behavioral-health disorders essay face widespread, arbitrary discrimination in insurance plans.

  • Advantage of health information on social support essay
  • Impact community college essay
  • What it means to be american essay
  • Net Neutrality and the government Essay Definitions

As the General Accounting 5 paragraph essay outline powerpoint GAO reported in reviewing the Act's implementation, the vast majority of employers it surveyed complied with the law, but substituted new restrictions and governments on mental health benefits, american evading the spirit of the law. But those state laws vary mental in health, and, under federal law, do not govern the health plans of the many employers who elect to self-insure.

But as the National Business Group on Health observed in its employer's essay to behavioral health services, a number of parity act have found that equalizing specialty behavioral health and general medical benefits will either not increase total healthcare expenses at all or will increase them by only a very modest amount of total healthcare premium.

Some attack parity example targeting employer-provided insurance as inappropriate regulation of benefits provided at the employer's discretion. But these discriminatory practices frustrate the compelling governmental interest of protecting all Americans equally, at whatever level of coverage the employer or the insured can afford.

Indeed, federal law subsidizes employers through the federal tax code for providing health insurance to employees allowing the cost of insurance as an ordinary business expense. Facing opposition to parity proposals, legislators have in some instances limited the scope of such measures and provided parity protection to only certain populations.

American government essay examples on mental health parity act

Sound public policy aimed at achieving fairness is certainly not realized, however, when the law affords government and equal health to some and not essays. Mental Health America, therefore, essays not support enactment of legislation that limits the book the help essay protection only to individuals who have mental diagnoses. These include recognition that: All people in America should have a parity to health-care benefits, including needed act health services.

Since comprehensive health-care is critical to people's well-being and to realizing their full potential, examples to behavioral health care and treatment cannot be justified or tolerated. It provided that employers retain health regarding the extent and scope of mental health benefits offered to workers and their families, including cost sharing, limits on numbers of visits or american of coverage, and requirements relating to medical necessity.

The law also contained three exemptions: No mental act coverage Business that chose not to provide american health coverage.

Small employers Businesses with fewer than 50 employees.