Mental Health Parity And Addiction Equity Act

Medicaid excludes inpatient hospital services other than services in an institution for mental disease. Congress specifically exempted most psychiatric care in state hospitals (Davoli, 2003)

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) introduced a statutory framework for advance decision making in England and Wales building upon the common law recognition of advance decisions. Academics considered that a bias may operate against upholding advance decisions refusing life-sustaining treatment 1. It’s commonly felt that judges usually give decisions favouring preservation of life and making advance decisions invalid on various grounds. Recent case-law indicates that a high level of specificity is required for advance refusals of life-sustaining treatment and, in some capacity must be demonstrated at the time of making the decision. This essay will argue the legal back ground of the advance decisions and relevant case law. There are suggestions that advance care planning (ACP) instead of advance decisions (ADRT) may be more helpful when it comes to the practice of law on ground 2.

Addiction is has been around for a long time. The fear of people becoming addicted to certain substances has lead to policies changes. However, there has not been a major federal law passed that dealt with addiction in over forty years. In 2016, President Obama signed a law that covered all the major points of addiction and recovery. This topic this important to me because some of my loved ones are addicts. I may also have clients that are addicts.This paper will take a look at that law. First, we have to define a few key terms.

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.

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.

The purpose of the bill is to reduce state Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) allotments annually from fiscal year (FY) 2014 through FY 2020. The reduction will occur “at the same time as the Marketplace and Medicaid provide increased coverage options that will reduce uncompensated care levels for hospitals. State Medicaid programs make DSH payments to qualifying hospitals that serve a large number of low-income individuals.”

Substance abuse has been a known topic which has not been recognized and fully treated the way it should. Unlike general medicine, substance abuse treatments have their own facility and services apart from general settings, making it harder to get the recognition and the assistance needed to help the individuals in need. Both the Affordable Care Act and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration (SAMHSA), which is a part of the US Department of Health and Human Services have promoted and established ways to enhance the quality of the treatment and the amount of treatment given.

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.

The framework of the PPACA allowed many individuals to receive better care. Implementing the PPACA was designed to profoundly enhance access to mental health services and expand coverage for uninsured Americans for federal agencies, businesses, states, and individuals. Health insurance corporations are unable to refuse coverage to anyone who has a pre-existing condition. When President Obama signed the PPACA into law, it was first and foremost intended to decrease the number of uninsured individuals in this nation. A vast proportion of Americans are covered through private insurances with an increase of 6.7 million newly enrolled citizens since 2014. In 2014, there was about 64% of Americans who was already covered through private insurances (Horgan et al., 2016). The PPACA provides an opportunity to bolster a broken mental health system that disproportionately ignores the needs of older adults.

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

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 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.