{"title":"随着倡导团体的动员,平等执法处于平衡状态","authors":"Gary Enos","doi":"10.1002/mhw.34471","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Trump administration's decision not to defend the provisions of the mental health parity final rule that took effect last year has left the advocacy community scrambling to identify options for maintaining parity's momentum. While it doesn't appear that all parity enforcement activity at the federal level has ceased, there remains great concern that the current regulatory environment in Washington gives insurers free rein to block access to necessary behavioral health services.</p>","PeriodicalId":100916,"journal":{"name":"Mental Health Weekly","volume":"35 22","pages":"1-3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Parity enforcement hangs in balance as advocacy community mobilizes\",\"authors\":\"Gary Enos\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/mhw.34471\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The Trump administration's decision not to defend the provisions of the mental health parity final rule that took effect last year has left the advocacy community scrambling to identify options for maintaining parity's momentum. While it doesn't appear that all parity enforcement activity at the federal level has ceased, there remains great concern that the current regulatory environment in Washington gives insurers free rein to block access to necessary behavioral health services.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100916,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mental Health Weekly\",\"volume\":\"35 22\",\"pages\":\"1-3\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mental Health Weekly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mhw.34471\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mental Health Weekly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mhw.34471","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Parity enforcement hangs in balance as advocacy community mobilizes
The Trump administration's decision not to defend the provisions of the mental health parity final rule that took effect last year has left the advocacy community scrambling to identify options for maintaining parity's momentum. While it doesn't appear that all parity enforcement activity at the federal level has ceased, there remains great concern that the current regulatory environment in Washington gives insurers free rein to block access to necessary behavioral health services.