Mental Health Coverage

* Re “Gray Areas Fuel Mental Health Coverage Debate,” May 19:

I am a parent of a 4-year-old boy with autism. I am also an attorney who has battled with health insurers over payment for mental health services for my son and for the children of my clients who have similar problems with their health insurance coverage.

Your article about the Senate’s version of the current health reform legislation requiring that insurers treat mental illness no differently than other diseases does not mention that California has had such law since 1989 (Insurance Code 10123.15). While such a “parity” rule certainly moves us in the right direction, my experience indicates that insurers have simply modified their policies to evade the application of this statute. By denying to all policyholders benefits for those services used disproportionately by the mentally ill, insurers can rightly claim to treat everyone equally.

Unless the pending legislation mandates an increased minimum level of coverage for those services most used by the mentally ill or disabled, the benefits sought to be derived by the “parity” legislation may well prove to be illusory.

ERIC D. BENNETT

Los Angeles