tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post5604989528320086577..comments2024-03-18T03:28:36.581-04:00Comments on Shrink Rap: Follow Up on Parity and Tuition Reimbursement InsuranceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-50002594854930121872015-09-12T16:04:03.796-04:002015-09-12T16:04:03.796-04:00It's a non-issue. Someone noticed it wasn'...It's a non-issue. Someone noticed it wasn't equivalent coverage and voiced it. It was immediately fixed. That's exactly what should happen. <br /><br />But as the other poster said, an optional insurance for an unlikely withdrawal from a private college where wealthy psychiatrists send their children is not where mental health parity needs to be fixed. Maybe you could address some of the real issues that face most people in the US with mental health care needs who can't afford basic coverage or access basic counseling or medication services, often times even with medical insurance. That is the parity battle that needs to be fought, not the optional and rare coverage for wealthy children of wealthy psychiatrists. Clarknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-68871341150581664642015-09-10T18:49:13.652-04:002015-09-10T18:49:13.652-04:00thanks for getting the information. lack of clarit...thanks for getting the information. lack of clarity about what college health insurance covered and did not cover meant we kept our son on our insurance through graduation...we lived in Massachusetts at that time, and their health care reform (including parity) measures were already in place. <br />It makes sense that it won't work to cover one type of issue 100% and the other only 60%, and that the shift would be partial but equal coverage of both types of illness/treatment. <br />Resistance to loss of complete coverage by some is NOT an ethically acceptable rationale for the disparity in coverage and the systemic bias against people with mental illness that underlies the lower coverage for tuition losses by students with mental illness.clairesmumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-30550633995370263702015-09-10T18:36:52.624-04:002015-09-10T18:36:52.624-04:00This really seems like not a big deal - a holdover...This really seems like not a big deal - a holdover from pre-parity. Since no one ever complained before (and rates of students (parents of students) buying ANY of this sort of insurance are extremely low to begin with), I'm sure it was never even a consideration. And yes, it should be, but now we have parity -- and look at that! The first parent to ever bring it up got it fixed. To me, that shows that parity is working - in this instance - exactly as it should be. Let's look at some real issues with parity, those that affect millions of americans daily rather then just those whose parents can afford to send them to private universities and take out insurance policies for potential, and unlikely, medical withdrawal. <br /><br />Priorities, people. Come on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com