According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), the best treatments for serious mental illnesses today are highly effective; between 70 and 90 percent of individuals have significant reduction of symptoms and improved quality of life with a combination of pharmacological and psychosocial treatments and supports.
Public policy in this country is not always based on a long-term investment strategy, data, or research. Crises of the moment, temporary public outcry, or strong lobbying efforts by special interest groups – these are the forces that often shape policy, and in many cases, may trigger unanticipated and unintended negative consequences.
At this moment in time, Congress has an opportunity to take action on an important issue, which not only makes sound economic sense, but it is also the right and compassionate thing to do. Bills have been introduced in both the House and the Senate that would require group health plans, which have fifty or more enrollees and which offer mental health coverage, to provide that coverage according to the same terms as the coverage for other medical conditions. This policy is referred to as mental health parity.
One of Devereux’s Trustees, Dr. Marilyn Benoit, Past President of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, suggests that we should use the term “brain disorders,” rather than mental illness. Mental health issues are the result of complex brain based biological processes and should be treated similarly to other organ based disorders such as those related to the heart, lung, pancreas, or kidney. If thought about in this manner, the parity issue should be easily resolved.
There is compelling evidence that when mental health needs remain unaddressed, total medical expenses increase. For instance, workers experiencing depression use significantly more sick leave as a result of their depression. Individuals with chronic diseases such as diabetes or heart disease will experience medical expenses almost twice the average for those diseases if they also suffer from depression. Initial studies at state and federal levels, where parity legislation has been implemented, indicate that the initial costs of additional mental health coverage are offset by reductions in other medical expenses, without considering the increased productivity of individuals receiving appropriate care and the decreased use of sick leave.
If we do not institute a policy of mental health parity, we will pay the costs in multiple social systems such as emergency rooms, child welfare systems, or juvenile and criminal justice systems. These are the systems that meet the needs of children and families when critical mental health needs remain unaddressed. We, in turn, all pay the price - none more so than the individuals suffering without help. Surely we wish to help those in need. It just makes good economic sense. Now is the time to speak up, to speak up for compassion and for justice.
For more information or to make your voice heard to your legislator, please click here.
