Mental health parity means that insurance companies would have to cover mental illness the same way they treat the coverage of other, traditionally covered with many fewer restrictions (relatively speaking) illnesses, such as diabetes or pneumonia, etc. If they don't limit a diabetic to two doctor visits a year (I'm speaking from a rather unknowledgeable position as regards diabetes), which I don't think they do because I think diabetics need more frequent visits in order to keep the illness in check? - Then they couldn't limit mental health visits to two a year, or whatever number.
In my case, it is 20 therapy visits. A better example might be, if they don't limit therapy visits to 20 per year for, say, someone who's had a stroke and needs the therapy, then they couldn't for mental health. I don't think the parity is tied to any one specific more traditionally thought of as "physical" illness (mental illness IS physical; there's problems in the chemical and structural aspects of the brain and nervous system, as well as many physical effects of such illness), but I just wanted to throw out some examples.
I found this About.com article to be an interesting comparison of these candidates on these issues, and was also pleased to note the following:
We will be following the top 3 candidates in each party for their positions on health care as it relates to those with mental illnesses. This page will be updated if the ranking of candidates change and/or when a candidate announces a new or changed policy.
I'll be checking back, that's for sure!
This article also references material at Health08.org, which looks to be a nice resource regarding these issues and the stances, policies, plans, platforms, politics, thoughts, et. al which the candidates have published, expressed, or otherwise stated regarding these matters. The comparison was put together by
the Kaiser Family Foundation with the assistance of Health Policy Alternatives, Inc. and is based on information appearing on the candidates' websites as supplemented by information from candidate speeches, the campaign debates and news reports. The sources of information are identified for each candidate's summary (with links to the Internet). The comparison highlights information on the candidates' positions related to access to health care coverage, cost containment, improving the quality of care and financing. Information will be updated regularly as the campaign unfolds.
I am pleased to see that this one will naturally be regularly updated, as well. The About.com article does note that the comparison at this linked site appears to be missing a bit of information regarding Mr. Obama's position.
I may not have the exact meaning of mental health parity nailed down, but regardless of any inaccuracies on my part, I thought it important to post about the subject while I had enough "oomph" to do so.
It appears that the Republicans do need to step it up. I say this as an American citizen, but also as a Republican. I do remember hearing in an interview with John Edwards earlier this year, or late last year, his answer to a question regarding mental health care coverage & parity; I was EXTREMELY pleased as well as surprised to hear that he had a definite, although not as fully formed then, notion of what he wanted to say on the matter - it was more than just a sentence or two, sound-bite answer; he had researched (well, okay, the interns and others probably do that, but candidates have to read or be briefed on the content) and THOUGHT THROUGH some of the difficulties that the mentally ill have had when it comes to trying to afford getting help.
I was extremely pleased, despite his being a Democrat, because I suspected that this meant the issue was going to be brought forward more, dealt with more, discussed and fleshed out more, as the campaigns began and moved forward.
On a more personal level, I must say I'm a bit aghast that Rudy Giuliani is at the head of the pack of Republican candidates; it is not due to the fact that I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as is Mitt Romney, but rather because I think people have this public image of Mr. Giuliani that is perhaps a bit disengenuous and a bit idealized, to say just a little on the matter, which may contribute to resulting in a far different Chief Executive than the one they perceived they were voting for. Although, I'd guess that any following of any particular candidate probably idealizes that candidate, as might naturally follow from all the enthusiasm worked up in the spirit of trying to help your candidate get elected.
I'm not trying to start any political fights! I just thought I'd throw a few of my personal thoughts, that are rather preliminary at this point in the campaigns, out there.
