INTRODUCTION: According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), more than five million individuals meeting criteria for serious mental illness “perceived themselves as having an unmet need for treatment in the year prior to the survey” (Bender, 2003). Of these, almost half cited inability to afford treatment as the primary reason for their needs not being met. This means that mentally ill individuals who want appropriate treatment but are unable to afford it constitute more than one percent of the entire adult population of the United States, a condition which represents a public health crisis and should be addressed.

There are a number of ways in which this issue can be conceptualized and corresponding actions which can be taken. One way in which legislators and advocacy groups have attempted to remedy the problem is through the proposal and institution of “parity” measures for mental health service coverage as it applies to American workers and other insurance consumers. Mental health parity, as an ideal, would make mental health and substance abuse services available to consumers on a level equal to the availability of general medical and surgical services. This can be accomplished either by forcing employers to add the additional benefits onto their group insurance plans, or by forcing insurance companies to include equal mental health coverage as a standard part of all health plans that they offer. The purpose of this analysis is to examine the arguments for and against mental health parity as well as the implications of the available alternatives.

PDF: Mental Health Parity: A Brief Policy Analysis