Mental Health Parity Act (MHPA)

People with mental illness have always been discriminated against; to have an exclusion such as this go through Congress without being repealed is reprehensible. The IMD Exclusion provides the states with financial incentives to provide substandard care, or no care at all. It encourages states to shift costs by placing mentally ill patients anywhere but psychiatric hospitals (Davoli, 2003).

The Mental Health Services Act is a monumental proposition that has helped many people for more than a decade. In California alone, close to 1.2 million adults and around 422,000 children live with a serious mental illness (State 2010). Without the proper treatment, suicide is the leading cause of death for a person battling an untreated mental illness (State 2010). With over thirteen billion dollars raised so far, MHSA has been the root of funding for mental health in California (Williams 2015). MHSA is still a work in progress. The act is nowhere near perfect, as a recent audit has shown, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.

Mental Health coverage prior to the Affordable Care Act was far to none. With about nearly one-third of currently covered individuals having no coverage for substance abuse disorder services and approximately 20% having no coverage for mental health services. Services such as outpatient therapy visits, impatient crisis intervention and stabilization were among many that were not offered. Since the Affordable Health Care Act has been passed more individuals are able to afford health insurance that were once uninsured. It has helped many individuals in being able to obtain medical services that were once inaccessible.

Problem Statement: The World Health Association defines ‘good’ health as: “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” However, in the United States, access to care and funding for mental health care are grossly neglected and underfunded in comparison to other aspects of health care.

In the course of proper identification, evaluation, and treatment, children and adolescents suffering with mental illness can conduct positive, normal lives. Nevertheless, the devastating majority of children with mental illnesses are unsuccessfully identified and the lack of treatment or support services have led to a subordinate worth of life and violence. The Mental Health Awareness and Improvement Act of 2013 (S. 689) is an inclusive bill proposed to address the extensive issue of mental health. By strongly considering the United States’ struggle against mental illness and school violence, as well as utilizing theoretical constructs to examine the Senate’s bill, a social worker can develop a more holistic perspective that can productively integrate practical insights reached from a variety of different points of view.

Policy analysis of mental health care under the ACA as well as description of how mental health care/service are organized under the ACA from federal to local levels.

Regardless of where one stands, one must admit that the American economy is not thriving. Not only is it not thriving, but also the American economy has either been in depression or on the verge of depression for the last decade. Because of this, parity seems to be a dream. It is not the prime time to push for the ACA, perhaps during the 80’s or 90’s, but there were other political dilemmas that needed to be dealt with. Another factor to take into account is the reaction of the healthcare system once it truly has to cover for mental illness treatment. Because there is an immense amount of cost, around $131,000(Abelson), to

In a letter addressed to HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell and DOL Secretary Thomas E. Perez, the senators emphasized that implementation of MHPAEA has been incomplete and inconsistent. The senators warned that parity is still not a reality for individuals living with mental illness and addiction, and that health plans routinely refuse to disclose medical management information making it impossible for consumers and providers to determine if the plans are treating

The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) -The law amended the 1996 Mental Health Parity Act by extending the parity requirements to include substance use disorder benefits. In addition, the MHPAEA requires parity with respect to all financial requirements (cost-sharing such as deductibles, copayments, and co-insurance) and treatment limitations (day or visit limits) between medical and surgical benefits and benefits for mental health and substance use disorder services (Kongstvedt 608-609)

The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA) is an act that requires parity or equality between mental health treatment and medical/surgical treatment covered by private and public insurers with over 50 employees. That means that if an insurance covers mental health issues they can’t impose more stringent limits and financial requirements than medical/surgical coverage. The act was signed into law in 2008 by President George W. Bush. Before the act was signed into law, mental health care was not as affordable or accessible for individuals. (United States Department of Labor, 2016)

In today’s society there is a greater awareness of mental illnesses. With this greater awareness one might assume that there would be a substantial increase in government involvement or funding in the area of mental illness treatment. Unfortunately this isn’t the case in the U.S. today. There are hundreds of thousands of people with mental illness that go untreated. These potential patients go untreated for many reasons. These reasons are discussed in the Time article “Mental Health Reform: What Would it Really Take.

The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) was enacted on October 3, 2008 as sections 511 and 512 of the Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008. MHPAEA amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Federal Register, 2013). The MHPAEA is an extension of the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996, which prohibited annual or aggregate lifetime financial limits on mental health coverage by addressing other restrictions, such as limits on outpatient visits or inpatient days (DOL, 2010). MHPAEA expands parity requirements to treatment limitations, financial requirements, and in- and out-of-network covered benefits (Smaldone, 2010). It also expands the opportunity of mental health parity requirements at the federal level and includes substance use disorders within its scope. Prior to 1996, health insurance coverage for mental illness had historically been less generous than that of other physical illness (Sarata, 2011). Mental health parity is a response to this disparity in insurance coverage, and generally refers to the concept that health insurance coverage for mental health services should be offered equally with covered medical and surgical benefits (Smaldone, 2010).

In 2010, the Affordable Care Act invoked a $75 millon dollar demonstration project known as the Medicad Emergency Psychiatric Demonstration that was amended in section 2707 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The change seemed to be just what the nation needed, however, there was fine print added to the amendment that changed the interpretation. The fine print stated, patients who are on Medicaid from the ages of 21-65 seeking inpatient mental health care can receive treatment under the law. However, the inpatient facility will receive no

Preceding the enactment of the Affordable Care Act and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, approximately forty-nine million individuals in the United States were uninsured. The Mental Health Parity and Addictions Equity Act (MHPAEA) does not command or require coverage for mental

Policies have an important role in regulating and shaping the values in a society. The issues related to mental health are not only considered as personal but also affecting the relationships with significant others. The stigma and discrimination faced by people with mental health can be traced to the lack of legislation and protection of rights (Rodriguez del Barrio et al., 2014). The policy makers in mental health have a challenging task to protect the rights of individuals as well as the public (Swigger & Heinmiller, 2014). Therefore, it is essential to analyse the current mental health policies. In Canada, provinces adopt their own Mental Health Acts (MHA) to implement mental health services. As of January 15, 2016, there are 13 mental health acts in Canada (Gray, Hastings, Love, & O’Reilly, 2016). The key elements, despite the differences in laws, are “(1) involuntary admission criteria, (2) the right to refuse treatment, and (3) who has the authority to authorize treatment” (Browne, 2010). The current act in Ontario is Mental Health Act, 1990.