tiffanyneclace34

PROLOGUE: Although President George W. Bush warmly endorsed expanded Tiffany Somerset dangle cuff health parity legislation in April 2002, congressional action has been slow in coming. The primary sticking point has been whether the conditions covered by such a law would be broadly or narrowly defined. Congress may be forgiven for having stumbled into an area with no easy answers, the following essays suggest. Advocates for increased access to mental health services have damaged their own case at times by citing inflated estimates of the prevalence of mental disorders-based on expansive definitions-which have both undermined advocates' credibility and increased fears that parity would lead to uncontrolled spending increases. In fact, states that have passed strong parity laws have not seen rapid spending increases because managed behavioral health care has reduced the use of costly inpatient care more than enough to offset increased use of outpatient services. On the other hand, if lawmakers insist on laboratory Tiffany Starfish Set to validate every claim for a behavioral health benefit-a standard that is not applied to medical benefits-then adequate coverage will be impossible to achieve.ABSTRACT: Mental disorders are highly prevalent, but prevalence is different from need for treatment. Some mental disorders are a major source of distress, disability, and social burden, and many people who could benefit from treatment do not receive it. Need is typically self-defined or defined by clinicians who are motivated to bring treatment to those who could benefit. Defining need appropriately requires consideration of the duration and reoccurrence of disorder, associated Two Heart Triple Set and disability, and the likelihood that treatment will be beneficial. Demand may be promoted inappropriately by clinicians and drug manufacturers who profit from expansion of demand. Future assessments of need must be based on evidence and take into account priorities for care and cost-effectiveness.

IT IS WIDELY RECOGNIZED that psychiatric disorders are highly prevalent in the general population and Venetian Link Set such disorders commonly contribute to personal distress and disability, family burden, and social disruption. With increased awareness, sophistication, and advocacy, growing demand is evident for increased insurance coverage and insurance parity with physical illness. Some believe, however, that more comprehensive coverage would vastly increase demand and cost because of the inclusiveness of psychiatric definitions and a concern that some treatment modalities such as psychotherapy are sometimes sought for self-improvement and self-actualization.

Others advocate comprehensive coverage for a limited group of serious mental illnesses such as Atlas and bipolar disorder. There is agreement that people with high levels of need should receive care but considerable skepticism that the presence of disorder itself is a reliable indicator of need. The crux of the issue is the relationship between psychiatric disorders as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association and a credible concept of need as seen by policymakers and the public. The discussion that follows seeks to illuminate this issue.