California Parity Law Creates Significant Changes
Eating disorders are known for being very difficult to treat. Often a person with an eating disorder may try many forms of therapy over many years and not have measurable success in overcoming the disease. There is a wide variety of types of therapy, ranging from outpatient to residential eating disorder programs.
A California case involving Blue Shield and a woman who suffered from a severe case of anorexia, named Jeanene Harlick, discussed on the online site for The New York Times is centered on the debate over whether residential care programs are considered an effective way to treat eating disorders, and whether insurance companies should be required to cover the costs.
Blue Shield has recently appealed the case after the court ruled in favor of Harlick, saying that the decision creates major problems for insurers. If insurance companies are required to cover residential eating disorder treatment, says Blue Shield, it can create a situation in which insurance companies are responsible for unlimited treatment. The programs offered in residential eating disorder treatment are said by some to be more focused on education than on physical recovery or treatment.
While some residential eating disorder programs average 30-40 days, for some severe cases, the stay can extend to month after month of treatment. Blue Shield and other insurance companies believe that it is reasonable for insurance companies to be able to set limits on eating disorder treatment. Otherwise, they say, costs will multiply for the insurers, and in turn, all consumers.
