The Mental Health Parity And Addiction Equity Act Of 2008

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illness have always been discriminated against; to have an exclusion such as this go through Congress without being repealed is reprehensible.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 Community Mental Health Act of 1963, was the first federal law that inspired community-based mental health care, and it ignited the transformation of the public mental health system (Young Minds Advocacy, 2016). Other names of the Act are Mental Retardation and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act of 1963. It was the beginning of the Deinstitutionalized movement in mental health treatment options for children, youth, and adults (National Council for Behavioral Health (NCBH), 2015). States received money from grants, from the Community Mental Health Act for the construction of these mental health centers. Initially, the intention of the grant program was to provide 1500 mental health centers nationally (Young Minds

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.

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 mental health act was created in 1983 to make society as fair as possible but it also has had some negative areas. The act says about the ‘removal’ of people with mental disorders. This could be seen as discrimination e.g. marginalisation because you would be making someone feel isolated from society and feel as if they could not be part of that certain part of the community. This act is purely to help and protect those with mental health issues and safeguard those around them. This act was updated from 2001 and finalised in 2007 because the language used in the act was changed. Also issues, treatments on different conditions

An interesting finding by Huskamp and Iglehart (2016) is that between the Mental Health Parity Act (MHPA) and the Affordable Care Act (ACA), there should be a rise in people with mental illness seeking services, however, services are underutilized more than ever (Huskamp & Iglehart, 2016). According to Bendant (2014), in 2013 a total of 47 million people uninsured and 25% of those suffer mental illness (Bendant, 2014). These numbers are staggering for a service that is more inclusive now more than ever. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) site indicates that the MHPA is regulated differently depending on the state (CMS, n. d.). The Department of Labor (DOL) has identified a few problems with the MHPA and addressed these issues to Congress via a 2017 report (DOL, n.

March 23, 2010 is a significant date for the United States. Following a long and controversial political and legislative process President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) into law. This pushed for the most significant changes to the United States health care system since Medicare and Medicaid back in 1965. The main stance of the act is to offer affordable benefits for all people including those who cant afford it. The Affordable Care Act includes a series of reforms that positively expand on the existing system of employer-sponsored insurance (ESI). It creates new requirements for individuals, employers, health care providers, and insurance companies (French, 2016). The ACA includes multiple strategies to target different populations and increase insurance coverage. It has offered many changes to medical benefits, treatments, as well as the quality of life. Specifically under the ACA, benefits for those who are struggling with a substance use disorder are mandated. One of those expansions in the ACA is the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (Advanced Recovery, 2016). This act ensures that insurance companies offer coverage for mental health disorders and treatment. A brief yet significant statement in the ACA states those with substance use disorders will be classified as suffering from a mental health disorder. The coverage for those who have struggled with an addiction allows for understanding on how

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 United States has never had an official federal-centered approach for mental health care facilities, entrusting its responsibility to the states throughout the history. The earliest initiatives in this field took place in the 18th century, when Virginia built its first asylum and Pennsylvania Hospital reserved its basement to house individuals with mental disorders (Sundararaman, 2009). During the 19th century, other services were built, but their overall lack of quality was alarming. Even then, researchers and professionals in the mental health field attempted to implement the principles of the so-called public health, focusing on prevention and early intervention, but the funds were in the hands of the local governments, which prevented significant advances in this direction.

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 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.