TRENTON, NJ -- The cost of providing mental health insurance at the same level as physical health benefits is negligible and some states have actually reduced medical costs when they expanded coverage of mental illnesses, according to a report released today by Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen.

“New Jersey citizens should be treated equally whether they have a physical or mental illness.  Legislation to correct this problem is long overdue,” Chen said.  “The cost of providing this care is minimal and the benefits are great – healthy people, healthy families, and a more productive workforce.”

 “On a purely humane level, it is unconscionable to expect people to endure mental illness when these diseases can and must be treated,” Chen added. “We must stop stigmatizing people who suffer from mental conditions.”

The advocate’s report was presented to a Congressional forum convened in Trenton today to hear from state residents whose lives have been touched by mental illness and addiction. The event was part of a nationwide tour, "The Campaign to Insure Mental Health and Addiction Equity,” hosted by Congressmen Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) and Jim Ramstad (R-MN) who have introduced federal legislation aimed at ensuring that health plans offer fair coverage for mental health and addiction care.

The advocate’s report will also be presented to the state Assembly Appropriations Committee on March 5 when it is scheduled to consider legislation, A-2512, that would expand healthcare coverage to include mental health conditions exempted under current law.

In 1999, New Jersey enacted a limited mental health parity law that requires insurers to provide coverage for biologically-based mental illnesses on par with the coverage they offer for physical illnesses. The law, however, exempts a host of illnesses, such as addictions, eating disorders and other conditions that may not be recognized as biologically based. This leaves a huge gap in coverage for thousands of New Jerseyan’s who struggle with these disorders.

New Jersey is among 25 states that have these limited parity laws, while 11 states have full parity and the rest require no coverage.

“The data we’ve collected demonstrates that if New Jersey moves to full parity, there will not be significant cost increases,” Chen said. “In fact, the opposite is true. Study after study shows that any small increase in premiums is more than offset by a decrease in medical costs because illnesses are caught earlier and treated properly.”

For example, Texas enacted a partial parity law in 1991 and saw a 48 percent decrease in the cost of mental health care within managed care plans. In 1997, the Texas Legislature enacted an even stronger parity law.

Plus, a recent study conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services found there was “little or no increase in total mental health or substance abuse spending” as a result of parity. Over the 5-year period ending December 2006, federal health insurance costs increased by 13 percent. During that same time, full mental health coverage costs increased just 0.1%.

In addition, people who are treated early and appropriately are less likely to miss work, increasing productivity and helping companies to be more profitable.

Read the full report.