Barriers to mental health coverage

ProPublica investigated barriers to insurance coverage for mental health and protections that exist to help combat these barriers.

The problem: Although federal law (parity) requires insurers to provide the same access to mental and physical health care, insurers frequently restrict coverage and delay or deny care for mental illness. Insurers can set their own standards for determining what to pay for, and this is often determined by financial interests, rather than patient interests or clinical expertise.

What providers say: Interviews with hundreds of mental health providers found that many eventually decide to leave insurance networks, due to insurers interfering with patients’ care, the dysfunction of working with insurers, and it being financially unsustainable.

States are implementing stronger protections, however:

Why it’s important: There are nowhere near enough available providers in insurance networks to serve all of the people seeking care, and even though almost all Americans are insured, many are unable to access care. Parity must be strengthened and enforced so that people with mental health/substance use disorder are able to access quality, affordable care, as determined by medical professionals, not insurers.

Surgeon general's urgent call to support parents

Surgeon General Murthy released an advisory on the mental health and wellbeing of parents, highlighting the urgent need to better support parents, caregivers, and families.

Why it’s important:

What it recommends: The advisory calls for a shift in culture, policies, and programs to ensure all parents/caregivers can thrive.

Read more: U.S. Surgeon General Issues Advisory on the Mental Health and Well-Being of Parents; Surgeon general’s new warning: Parents are stressed out

2023 Monitoring the Future shows adult substance use trends

NIDA released the 2023 Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey results for adults.

What it found: In 2023:

Read more: Cannabis and hallucinogen use among adults remained at historic highs in 2023

Public shut out of opioid fund decisions

The problem: The public, including people who have lost loved ones to the opioid crisis or are dealing with it daily, are routinely shut out of having say in how opioid settlement funds can be best used.

Where it’s happening: In at least 39 states and DC, councils consisting of government officials, clinicians, law enforcement officials, and others guide decisions about how to spend the funds.

Why it’s happening: States cited a variety of reasons for limiting public involvement.

However: Several states manage concerns by limiting each person’s comment to a few minutes. Some states, like Illinois, Kentucky, Oregon, and Tennessee, routinely allow public comment and include people affected by the issue.

Read more: Public Voices Often Ignored in States’ Opioid Settlement Money Decisions