The answer to this question is: freedom!

Insurance companies should be permitted, but not required, to offer plans that cover psychotherapy. Likewise, consumers should be given the option to select plans that do, or do not cover psychotherapy.

Insurance companies that choose to offer plans that do cover the cost of psychotherapy should also be free to impose any reasonable restrictions or limitations that they choose, provided that the consumer is made aware of those restrictions or limitations before purchase.

This same question came up when the Mental Health Parity bill passed (as part of the bailout bill!). There was much rejoicing, but the reality is that forcing insurance companies to offer these services with no limitations will inevitably raise premiums for everyone on the plan. Right now there is someone "on the bubble" (i.e., just barely able to afford premiums). As soon as Acme Insurance company is forced to pay for unlimited therapy sessions, rehab services, etc. the premiums are going to rise and push that person right off the bubble. In other words, some people will get more services, and others will get no services.

To me this seems like a no-brainier.

When it comes to money, we understand that there will always be a system that must provide oversight of services, i.e., fraud, appropriateness of services, etc.

However, more trust should be placed into the hands of the client and their therapist. A service rep with little to no training in psychology should not be calling the shots on limitations of psychotherapy services. Models such as “Client Directed, Outcome Informed (CDOI)” much be given consideration with managed care (although some actually do). Check out talkingcure.com (No, I have no affiliation)

Just by two cents...of course I am not biased, lol.

Managed care and govenrment oversight is killing the mental health field, as well as the medical field. Insurance companies should not be required to cover mental health issues. There is no evidence to show that a diagnosis impacts, in anyway, outcomes. Treatment methods should be determined by the provider in consult with the client--not insurance companies. Costs of therapy should be based on what people are willing to pay for them--fairness should not be an issue. For those who cannot afford private services, services should be avaiable through other means. If a practitioner decides to work in a non-profit or government funded facility, then he/she aslo decides to be paid what the agency is willing to pay him/her. That is the practitioners choice. The idea that everything can be fair is a delusion. The goal should be access or availability, which already exists, but can be improved. If fairness becomes the goal, then eveyone will suffer the consequences of the whole system being controlled by politicians and other beaurocrats whose main issue is cost reduction. The problem is that in the process of attemtping to do so, they will raise costs and decrease access.

For what conditions? For how long? For what treatment methods? Provided by whom? Is mental illness a medical concern? Should therapy be covered even if there is no diagnosable or impairing disorder? In what ways is therapy a luxury item for the worried well, a community service, or a medical treatment? Are the current costs of therapy fair...or how much should therapy cost? Who becomes the guide for treatment planning? What therapy information should be given to your insurance companies?

I almost thought this was a "trick" question! Of course individuals should be able to purchase HEALTH insurance that includes not only physiological health, illness, and injury issues; but also emotional/mental health, illness, and injury issues. Premium costs and treatment-cost coverages should be delimited only in the same ways that physiological premium costs and treatment-cost coverages are delimited.

Get with the enlightened age, folks. Just because an individual whose head is not covered by a big bulky bandage or brace or other medical device does not prove that individual does not have a painful, debilitating, disabling injury or illness (short- or long-term; easily treated or not) within the brain inside that head.

I THOUGHT the stigma of mental/emotional illness/injury is largely diminished as of 2009. Can I have been so wrong?

PROVE to me why mental/emotional illness and injury are any less real and damaging to an individual than a physiological illness or injury. Then, you can PROVE that mental/emotional illnesses and injuries have no place in a HUMAN HEALTH INSURANCE POLICY.

Between, the psychologist and the therapist, neither of whom take insurance, our family has pretty much burned through our savings trying to help our daughter who struggles with major depression. Why is it that this field is so unlikely to accept insurance? It's a tremendous burden, and sometimes I feel like I have to choose between my daughter's mental health and our family's financial future.

Between, the psychologist and the therapist, neither of whom take insurance, our family has pretty much burned through our savings trying to help our daughter who struggles with major depression. Why is it that this field is so unlikely to accept insurance? It's a tremendous burden, and sometimes I feel like I have to choose between my daughter's mental health and our family's financial future.