Patients with mental illness have been regarded as a vulnerable population in a healthcare setting for a long time. The reason for their inequity is the lack of a legal framework to address the mental health issues, the absence of awareness to treat it, and the financial burden of therapy. However, the recent developments in policymaking have implemented significant changes to improve people’s quality of care in regards to psychiatric illnesses. One of such fundamental changes made to facilitate eliminating barriers to healthcare is the Mental Health Parity Act of 2008. It has been introduced to minimize the distinctions between physical and psychological well-being, as well as enable patients to seek treatment for both aspects of their welfare equally. More specifically, the given regulation obliges insurance to cover behavioral therapy equally to a surgical and physical one. Thus, every insurance coverage enables a person to seek treatment for both psychological and physical issues without any distinction.
This policy has a drastic effect on vulnerable populations and their access to mental health services. According to the research done by Goldberg and Lin (2017), there has been at least a “10% increase in psychiatric therapy prevalence and more than 75% of medication prescription” (p. 35). Furthermore, people seeking psychological treatment have more than tripled since the policy’s implementation, which signifies a need for behavioral health equity. As evident from the statistic given above, the regulation has significantly contributed to improving emotional well-being among patients by enabling them to seek relevant medical care. This policy has also been the first step in battling the stigma surrounding the behavioral illness. As Thalmayer et al. (2017) state, negative stereotypes and stigmatization of people with mental illness have been the primary barrier to change when reducing the financial and social burden of depression. With the introduction of the policy, a major ethical shift in perception has been made in terms of normalizing psychological treatment and therapy, which allowed more people in need to address their problems medically and be able to afford it.
As it concerns the perspective of healthcare providers, the policy has been helpful in terms of enabling workers to provide much-needed psychological help to patients regardless of the patients’ insurance. While this policy has implemented a positive change, it has also uncovered an underlying ethical issue within healthcare. According to Goldberg and Lin (2017), “patient race/ethnicity, practice setting, physician specialty, and primary source of payment were associated with the diverging likelihood of being prescribed depression treatment” (p. 36). This finding indicates that people of particular socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic backgrounds are less likely to receive treatment even if it is covered by their insurance.
Social determinants of health are prevalent in psychiatric treatment, and healthcare professionals should be able to recognize and address hidden biases that are present both within their individual and institutional levels of care. While the Mental Health Parity Act enabled medical professionals to help patients in need, it also highlighted other fundamental ethical issues (Thalmayer et al., 2017). As a measure to address the rising costs of healthcare expenses and the widening gap of health disparities, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act supplemented the initial policy in 2010. It reinforced the purpose of the Mental Health Parity Act and ensured that people could seek the treatment they need regardless of costs (Thalmayer et al., 2017). This regulation further helped to contribute to the destruction of mental health stigma and reinforced the ethicality of equal access to care.
References
Goldberg, D., & Lin, H. (2017). Effects of the mental health parity and addictions equality act on depression treatment choice in primary care facilities.The International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 52(1), 34-47. Web.
Thalmayer, A., Friedman, S., Azocar, F., Harwood, J., & Ettner, S. (2017). The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) evaluation study: Impact on quantitative treatment limits.Psychiatric Services, 68(5), 435-442. Web.