With Senator Edward Kennedy facing an inoperable brain tumor, much of the legislation he’s been championing in the past few years is left in limbo. The most important piece of legislation he was overseeing in mental health was the effort to make mental disorders equal to medical diseases so that health insurers can no longer discriminate against mental health concerns with limited coverage. This effort, called mental health parity, was to be decided this year, after both the House (with the help of his son, Patrick Kennedy) and Senate passed mental health parity bills which only needed to be reconciled in committee.
With Kennedy back at home and taking some time off to consider his treatment options and undergo his cancer treatment, it’s unclear what will become of this and other bills of which he was the leading sponsor.
Senator Kennedy has been a driving force in the Senate, especially during the past decade, and we wish him the best of luck with his treatment. But we also hope someone will take up his cause in helping to promote equality in health and mental health treatments. It’s a serious issue that affects millions of Americans and has been left to languish for far too long.
Read the full Time article: Kennedy’s Unfinished Senate Agenda
(3 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Links to This Article
My Cancer Treatments » Blog Archive » Mental Health Parity Loses its Champion (5/22/2008)
3 Comments to
“Mental Health Parity Loses its Champion”
This is sad. I too hope someone will take up this cause since it effects so many in our great nation!
The fact that in this day and age we are still talking about mental disorders being treated the same as physical is amazing to me. The time is here to put the stigma aside and move forward.
http://www.phoenixrising-online.com
I too hope someone spearheads the fight. It has taken so long for a dent to be made in the stigma and legislation, let alone insurance, Medicaid and Medicare policies.
I have a private PPO insurance plan and two years ago became unable to work due to the diagnosis of PTSD & Major Depressive Disorder, Moderate, Recurrent that has included a paid hospitalization supplemented by private paying an additional week and a half until my therapist and I thought it was safe for me to be released. I know that I would have been rehospitalized if I was released when insurance told them to do so along with recommendations for medication changes without ever speaking with me or looking at my history.
My insurance company wants me to change to an in-network provider even though I have PPO. There are huge issues with trust and continuity of care especially as I’ve known my therapist for more than 20 years and obviously treatment is working or I wouldn’t be able to write this. My medications are not stable and need to be monitored due to side effects. I know that my treatment is not traditional. I’m in therapy 4 days per week and see my psychiatrist every other week. I just want them to approve at least what used to be traditional weekly therapy.
My insurance company has been generous enough to authorize 20 sessions with my psychiatrist and 20 with my therapist for the year. If I were an cancer or heart disease patient would I have this level of treatment? If I were hospitalized for these diseases, would they release me prematurely without enough doctor visits for medication and monitoring? In 20 years both working in the mental health field and the receipient of its services, everything has changed for the benefit of the insurance company and a huge detriment to the patient and treatment providers. And, the way they do it just perpetuates the problem. Treat the symptoms and not treat the cause will only make it come back just like cancer and heart disease. And, mental illness, cancer and heart diseases are all fatal!!! Who is going to take responsibility for that!!!
Sorry to go on so, but I just received my generous approval with my denial for more services and have watched way too many a person be released before they should have or unable to receive services because they were not acute, they could not provide preventative care because of the grant.
Join the Conversation! Post a Comment:
Last reviewed: By John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on 22 May 2008
