[Vision2020] Why Not Idaho?

[Saundra Lund]

Visionaries:

I'm including links to two (no registration required) articles regarding the WA
House's passage of an act that would require parity for mental health insurance:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420&slug=WA%20XG
R%20Mental%20Health
OR
http://tinyurl.com/59e72

AND
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002163128_mentalhealth28m.html
OR
http://tinyurl.com/5z329

Essentially, what parity means is that mental illnesses and diseases are
required to be treated by insurance the same way "physical" ailments are
covered.  At least 35 states *already* have some version of parity.  Not
surprisingly, Idaho is NOT one of those states  :-(

Regardless of your political persuasion (unless you're one who wants *all*
health insurance done away with), there is no denying that our treatment of
those suffering from mental illness is shameful, and that unconscionable
treatment extends to denying equality in health insurance coverage.

While it's not completely up-to-date, please also see the following link for the
broad *bipartisan* support mental health parity has nationwide:
http://www.aacap.org/legislation/stChart.htm

If you're not familiar with mental health parity, please read the two articles
to get an introduction to the topic, which certainly isn't something you've
likely heard or read about here in Idaho.

And, then ask yourself:  why is Idaho *again* behind the times?  And, if you are
so inclined, please ask our legislators the same question LOUDLY!

There are pros & cons to everything, of course.  Some states have chosen to
exclude or seriously limit treatment of substance abuse and alcoholism under
mental health parity laws.  While I personally wouldn't like to see Idaho take
that approach, I am honestly more concerned with the denial of parity for those
suffering from neurobiological illnesses over which they *never* had any choice
or control.

And, there are some common financial misconceptions (not surprisingly advanced
by big insurance companies) I'd like to debunk right now.

The FACT is that, just as with physical health, it's ***far*** cheaper to
provide treatment than it is to treat emergencies, whether private insurance
companies pick up the tab or the State gets stuck with the bill because private
insurance companies weasel their way out.

And, the FACT is that when insurance refuses to cover mental health treatment,
we all as taxpayers pick up the tab for the resulting hospitalizations.

And, when children with mental health issues can't receive treatment any other
way, the FACT is that those children are increasingly surrendered to state care
out of desperation.  Again, when that happens, we ALL pay.

And, it's a FACT that when those suffering from mental illness aren't able to
access affordable treatment, this impacts their ability to work and support
themselves, which increases the burden on taxpayer-funded government programs.

In short, it benefits us ALL when mental health parity exists.


Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.
-Edmund Burke