Hernandez Elaine M, Uggen Christopher
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Soc Ment Health. 2012 Nov 1;2(3). doi: 10.1177/2156869312455436.
Mental health parity laws require insurers to extend comparable benefits for mental and physical health care. Proponents argue that by placing mental health services alongside physical health services, such laws can help ensure needed treatment and destigmatize mental illness. Opponents counter that such mandates are costly or unnecessary. The authors offer a sociological account of the diffusion and spatial distribution of state mental health parity laws. An event history analysis identifies four factors as especially important: diffusion of law, political ideology, the stability of mental health advocacy organizations and the relative health of state economies. Mental health parity is least likely to be established during times of high state unemployment and under the leadership of conservative state legislatures.
精神卫生平权法要求保险公司为精神卫生保健和身体健康保健提供可比的福利。支持者认为，通过将精神卫生服务与身体健康服务置于同等地位，此类法律有助于确保获得所需治疗，并消除对精神疾病的污名化。反对者则反驳称，此类强制规定成本高昂或没有必要。作者提供了一个关于州精神卫生平权法的传播和空间分布的社会学解释。一项事件史分析确定了四个特别重要的因素：法律的传播、政治意识形态、精神卫生倡导组织的稳定性以及州经济的相对健康状况。在州失业率高企期间以及在保守的州立法机构领导下，精神卫生平权最不可能确立。
