During a morning tour of the Sutter Center for Psychiatry, Matsui met with mental healthcare experts and heard firsthand the financial and personal devastation caused by the lack of adequate private mental healthcare coverage. The congressman then participated in a news conference to unveil a new effort to focus Congressional debate on this important issue. This is a very important issue that must be addressed. The amendment would have prohibited treatment limits and financial requirements on mental health coverage that exceed those for coverage of physical conditions. It is possible that none of these provisions will be enacted into law before Congress adjourns for the year.
Studies indicate mental health parity results in savings to business and government.
Numerous studies and experiences by employers have demonstrated that providing parity coverage for the treatment of mental illness does not result in huge cost increases and, in many cases, results in significant overall savings. The cost of mental healthcare coverage has been widely exaggerated, as has the likelihood of significant over utilization of services. The study found no significant insurance cost increases or reductions of other health benefits in either states. Those costs would be more than offset by savings to businesses in terms of worker productivity and reduced absenteeism. Studies have proven that most healthcare plans cover mental disorders with significantly more restrictions on copayments and the type and amount of services covered.