Content provided in partnership with
Money and madness: why mental-health parity is a costly fraud! U.S. surgeon general admits diagnoses of psychiatric mental disorders is not science
Insight on the News, June 24, 2002 by Kelly Patricia O'Meara
But that's not the issue, critics say. It's whether as-yet medically proved illness ought to be paid for by insurance companies, employers and patients at the same levels as diseases science physically has confirmed.
Neither former surgeon general David Satcher (author of the 1999 Surgeon General's Report on Mental Health) nor former NIMH director Steven Hyman would agree to an interview to discuss these matters. Given the official admission by former surgeon general Satcher it is tempting to speculate why the interviews were denied. What is unclear is why lawmakers continue to push for mental-health parity with medical disease when, to date, there is no physical proof that any of the psychiatric mental disorders can be confirmed as abnormalities of the brain.
- Most Popular Articles in News
- The Ten Best Laptop bags
- Tata plans cheapest-ever car for Indian market
- GLOBALIZATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT OF THE THIRD WORLD
- Corn is good for you; Corn is not only a tasty treat, but also a cereal that ...
- THE 50 BEST STYLISH HANDBAGS TO CARRY
- More »
As recently as late May sponsors of the House parity legislation, Marge Roukema (R-N.J.) and Kennedy, continued the push to "end discrimination against patients seeking treatment for mental illness." In a "Dear Colleague" letter to members of the House of Representatives entitled "The Truth About The Impact of Mental Health Parity," Roukema and Kennedy attempted to "eliminate any confusion about the DSM." The authors sought to give credence to the APA's diagnostic manual, explaining that, "for 50 years, DSM has been widely recognized as the `international standard' system for classifying mental disorders" and the "DSM is the state of the art of the knowledge base."
The "Dear Colleague" advocacy letter closed by observing: "There will always be those who oppose ending insurance discrimination.... While we strongly disagree with them, we look forward to a debate on the facts." Perhaps so. But nowhere did the letter so much as mention that none of the psychiatric diagnoses in the DSM are based in physical science such as abnormalities of the brain found in life or death.
Meanwhile, independent groups representing businesses and other insurers say they are alarmed about the financial burden the proposed legislation is certain to produce. It is widely estimated that nearly 45 million Americans already are without health insurance and there is little doubt that mandating expanded coverage of undefined "mental disease" will run up costs and premiums still further. No one knows how much, but consider these guesstimates:
* In 2001 the Business Journal estimated the likely increase in costs would be as high as 40 percent; the National Association of Health Underwriters suggests insurance premiums likely would increase by 11.4 percent.
* The National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) conducted a study among its 600,000 members that indicates even existing state benefit mandates could increase premiums by as much as 30 percent.
* An April 2002 PricewaterhouseCoopers report estimates that government mandates and regulations, which increased 25-fold from 1970 to 1996, will add $10 billion to the overall increase in health premiums.
