FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 354:1415-1417 March 30, 2006 Number 13 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text PDF PDA Full Text Purchase this article Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited E-mail When Letters Appear Related Article by Goldman, H. H. PubMed Citation

People with private health insurance who seek care for mental health conditions generally face higher coinsurance and more limits to coverage — including limits on the numbers of outpatient visits and inpatient days — than do those who require care for other health conditions. These restrictions reduce the use of mental health services and force persons who have severe mental health problems to bear crushing financial costs for necessary treatment.¹

Existing insurance limitations reflect previous experience. Efforts to extend parity coverage — equality of benefits — to federal employees in the 1960s failed as the use of services soared and . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Source Information

From the Department of Health Policy and Management, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Carter, M., Landau, R. (2009). Employers Face Challenges With New Mental Health Parity Act. Compensation Benefits Review 41: 39-51  
• Goldman, H. H. (2007). Considering Health Insurance Parity for Mental Health and Substance Abuse Treatment: The Federal Employees Health Benefits Experience. Am. J. Psychiatry 164: 1473-1474 [Full Text]