Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Email this article to a Colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Articles & Searches Download to citation manager Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Articles by Peck, M. C. Articles by Scheffler, R. M. Search for Related Content PubMed Citation Articles by Peck, M. C. Articles by Scheffler, R. M. Health Insurance Health Policy and Legislation

An Analysis of the Definitions of Mental Illness Used in State Parity Laws

OBJECTIVE: Thirty-four states have enacte mental health parity laws that require a health plan, insurer, or employer to provide coverage for mental illness equal to that for physical illness. This study analyzed definitions of mental illness used in state parity laws, identified factors influencing the development of these definitions, and examined the effects of different definitions on access to care for persons with mental illness. METHODS: Specific language in each state's parity legislation was analyzed. Interviews were conducted with policy makers, mental health providers, advocates, and insurers to determine factors influencing a state's definition. Current definitions of mental illness used in the clinical literature and in federal policy were reviewed and compared with definitions used in state parity laws. RESULTS: The definitions of mental illness used in state parity legislation vary significantly and fall into one of three major categories: "broad-based mental illness," "serious mental illness," or "biologically based mental illness." To define each of these categories, state legislatures do not rely on clinically accepted definitions or federal mental health policy. Rather, influenced by political and economic factors, they are developing their own definitions. CONCLUSIONS: Definitions of mental illness in state parity laws have important implications for access, cost, and reimbursement; they determine which populations receive a higher level of mental health services. Future research must qualitatively examine how state definitions affect the use and cost of mental health services.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. Wolff and Jing Shi Feelings of Safety Among Male Inmates: The Safety Paradox Criminal Justice Review, September 1, 2009; 34(3): 404 - 427. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. H. Goldman and G. N. Grob Defining 'mental illness' in mental health policy. Health Aff., May 1, 2006; 25(3): 737 - 749. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. C. Kessler, P. Berglund, O. Demler, R. Jin, K. R. Merikangas, and E. E. Walters Lifetime Prevalence and Age-of-Onset Distributions of DSM-IV Disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication Arch Gen Psychiatry, June 1, 2005; 62(6): 593 - 602. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Get information about faster international access.

Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2002 American Psychiatric Association. All rights reserved.

Home | Search | Current Issue | Past Issues | Subscribe | All APPI Journals | Help | Contact Us