With the change in power in congress and President Bush’s vow to brandish his pen in favor, it seems that all of the obstacles once blocking a mental health parity law are now gone.

(Just so we’re all on the same page, a mental health parity law would require insurers to provide equal benefits for mental and physical illness.)

Presuming the bill will be passed, What does it mean for the insurance industry? For employers? For patients?

The near-constant refrain from insurers is that such a mandate would drive up premiums for everyone and make it more difficult for employers to provide coverage for their workers. If history is any judge, insurers may be on to something.

But advocates of parity point to studies that show treating mental and physical illness equally isn’t something to fear. Some of these studies, including a 2003 federal study of Vermont’s parity law, which is the strictest in the country, reveal that parity can actually lower health care spending in some cases. The reason? Those who get regular care are less likely to need major medical attention later on. Employers, in turn, see reduced absenteeism when the mentally ill are given proper care.

Which side, Agent Blog reader, do you agree with? Is this another costly mandate that will simply be passed on to the average premium-paying Joe? Or is this a long overdue redressing of an unfair system?

Let us know by leaving a comment—as long or as short as you like—below. You don’t need to wax eloquent—if you’re pressed for time but want to be on record as having an opinion, you can just write “good idea” or “bad idea.”

I look forward to hearing from you.