In fact, the law could exacerbate the problem. As a result, many of them may try to counteract these costs by imposing limits, such as restricting the number of inpatient days or outpatient days covered, or by requiring employees to pay higher deductibles. Under the 1996 Mental Health Parity Act, employer health plans that cover mental health care are to provide the same annual and lifetime reimbursement ceilings for such care that they provide for other ailments. Despite its name, the parity acts does not require true parity in benefits. Plans are still free to impose special limits on the number of inpatient days and outpatient visits covered, require greater enrollee cost sharing for mental health services through higher deductibles for such care, or use copayments or less generous coinsurance.
Plans can also adopt stringent precertification and utilization review procedures.
These findings suggest that the parity law may indeed lead employers to add more restrictions to their present coverage, according to the authors. But the study asserts that employees are not likely to see significant changes any time soon in the formal benefit provisions for mental health care as a result of the 1996 Mental Health Parity Act. The study authors stress that the effective coverage provided may change very little since employers will likely implement a variety of coverage limits to offset the potential cost associated with the overall coverage requirements of the parity act. In 1995, among full-time workers in large firms, only 18 percent of those with mental health coverage had benefits for inpatient care equivalent to those for physical problems. For outpatient care, only 2 percent had coverage that equaled their benefits for physician visits.