Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Expansion of the CA Mental Health Parity Act's Requirements for Treatment of Eating Disorders
In 1999, the California legislature enacted the California Mental Health Parity Act (“Parity Act”) to remedy what it perceived to be a deficiency in coverage for mental illness on the part of private health insurance policies. Within the broad realm of mental illness, tens of millions of Americans suffer from eating disorders, most notably anorexia nervosa (“anorexia”) and bulimia nervosa (“bulimia”). Recently, insureds prevailed in two decisions regarding health insurance coverage for such eating disorders. In Harlick v. Blue Shield of California, 686 F.3d 699 (9th Cir. 2012), and Rea v. Blue Shield of California, 2014 WL 2584433 (Cal. Ct. App. June 10, 2014), courts found that the Parity Act requires health insurance providers to cover certain services used to treat eating disorders that were excluded from coverage in the insureds' policies. This article summarizes these decisions and discusses the implications for health insurance providers.
The Parity Act
Enacted in 1999, the Parity Act is part of the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act (“Knox-Keene Act”) found in ” 1340'1399 of the California Health and Safety Code. California first enacted the Knox-Keene Act in 1975 to provide a legal framework for the regulation of California's individual and group health care plans. Located within the Knox-Keene Act, the Parity Act mandates that health care service plans that provide “hospital, medical, or surgical coverage shall provide coverage for the diagnosis and medically necessary treatment of severe mental illnesses.” CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ' 1374.72(a). The California legislature enacted the Parity Act to address the imbalance between medical coverage for physical and mental illnesses. The legislature found that the majority of “private health insurance policies provide coverage for mental illness at levels far below coverage for other physical illnesses.” 1999 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 534 (A.B. 88), ' 1. As a result of this gap in coverage, the legislature determined that inadequate treatment for mental illness led to “relapse and untold suffering” as well as general increases in crime and homelessness, with an accompanying negative impact on the state budget. Id .
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.