I am going to study the new parity regs this weekend. It leaves out those with serious mental illness (SMI) who mainly have Medicaid-- fail #1, a BIG fail. But there are some other things Im uncertain about. Id appreciate it if any of you who understand the workings of these formulas can look at it and tell me what you think. Not sure I understand how the phrase substantially all got turned into 2/3-- doesnt sound like substantially all to me and may be a way for insurers to still short care. And also not certain about the places where it says disparity in outcomes (of things like provider lists) doesnt mean there is actual disparity. Huh? Then what the heck is the way to tell? Is this going to be just smoke and mirrors? Under single payer or other forms of national health care access, including voluntary ground up/ grassroots networks, wed still have to address parity, because in so many areas of the country (including mine) the psychiatrists often do not take insurance at all. They are cash only and might not participate. There is also a huge distribution problem with psychiatrists, geographically. HR 676 does not have a feature to insure there is parity of providers participating in mental health care-- perhaps that could be added. Payment is one aspect that helps but it is NOT the only thing by any means. If you look at this and comment, for this post please help me out by sticking to the question about the regs and how you think they would play out. I know some of you have very different opinions about diet vs medicine, etc, for brain health-- please save that for a different thread. I want to blog on the regs once I feel like I understand them. https://s3.amazonaws/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2013-27086.pdf
Posted on: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 14:06:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015