Michigan Partners for Parity

State-Wide Public Opinion Poll--April 2000

The polling script identified the caller from Team Telcom in Lansing and informed the respondent that the purpose of the call was to do a short study on mental health issues. Answers were taken from registered voters only. The poll was conducted by telephone in April, 2000. A total of 500 registered voters were interviewed. The margin for error is +/- 5%.

Question 1: How many Americans do you believe suffer from a mental illness in any one-year period?

1 in five*	41.2%
1 in 50	32.0%
1 in 100	13.0%
Don’t Know	13.6%
Refused	0.2%

[*actual prevalence]

Question 2: Do you know the extent of your own mental health coverage?

Yes	44.6%
No	51.8%
Don’t Know	3.6%
Refused	0.0%

Question 3: Do you believe insurance companies discriminate against people with mental illness?

Yes	44.2%
No	27.0%
Don’t know	28.6%
Refused	0.2%

Question 4:Do you think that a person’s health insurance should pay the cost of treatment for mental illness to the same extent that it pays for the cost of treating other medical illnesses?

Yes	88.2%
No	5.8%
Don’t know	6.0%
Refused	0.0%

Question 5: Would you favor or oppose a state law that would require insurance
companies to provide equal coverage between mental and other medical illnesses?

Favor	83%	Strongly favor	56.2%
		Somewhat favor	26.8%
Oppose	9.8%	Somewhat oppose	5.6%
		Strongly oppose	4.2%
Don’t know	7.0%
Refused	0.2%

Question 6: 29 states have passed some form of mental health parity and studies show that parity resulted in minimal or no increases in cost for insurance coverage. If you were asked to pay an additional 1% to 1½ % in premium cost to achieve parity in mental health benefits, would that be worth it to you?

Yes	77.2%
No	13.6%
Don’t know	9.0%
Refused	0.2%

Question 7: In what year were you born?

1. 1982-1976 (18-24); 22 (4.4%)

2. 1975-1971 (25-29); 29 (5.8%)

3. 1970-1966 (30-34); 46 (9.2%)

4. 1965-1961 (35-39); 35 (7.0%)

5. 1960-1956 (40-44); 52 (10.4%)

6. 1955-1951 (45-49); 49 (9.8%)

7. 1950-1946 (50-54); 54 (10.8%)

8. 1945-1941 (55-59); 39 (7.8%)

9. 1940-1936 (60-64); 40 (8.0%)

10. 1935-1926 (65-74); 59 (11.8%)

11. 1925 or earlier (75+); 69 (13.8%)

12. Refused; 6 (1.2%)

Question 8: What is your occupation?

1. White Collar—Upper, Business/Professional; 87 (17.4%)

2. White Collar—Lower, Clerical/Sales; 64 (12.8%)

3. Blue Collar—Upper, Skilled Trade/Foreman; 46 (9.2%)

4. Blue Collar—Lower, Operative/Laborer; 46 (9.2%)

5. Governmental Employee; 8 (1.6%)

6. Farmer/Rancher; 1 (0.2%)

7. Housewife/Homemaker; 59 (11.8%)

8. Student; 17 (3.4%)

9. Unemployed/Laid Off; 3 (0.6%)

10. Retired; 150 (30.0%)

11. Other; 13 (2.6%)

12. Refused; 6 (1.2%)

Question 9: Is there a union member in your household?

Yes	27.4%
No	71.8%
Don’t know	0.2%
Refused	0.6%

Question 10: Is there an adult in your household who owns or is employed by a business with 25 or fewer employees?

Yes	26.2%
No	71.2%
Don’t know	1.4%
Refused	1.0%

The poll was conducted by telephone in April, 2000. A total of 500 registered voters were interviewed. The margin for error is +/- 5%.

Labor and Small Business Households -- Cross tabulation -- Questions 4, 5, & 6
#	Question subject	Labor	Not labor	Sm. Business	Not Sm. Business
4	Support mental health parity	92%	87%	88%	88%
5	Support a law to create parity	90%	80%	82%	83%
6	Parity is worth a premium increase	76%	78%	78%	77%
6	Parity not worth a premium increase	14%	13%	17%	13%

 

             Michigan Partners for Parity, a coalition of over 80 organizations dedicated to ending insurance discrimination against persons experiencing mental disorders, today released the results of a statewide public opinion poll conducted in April.  The results reveal overwhelming voter support for state legislation that would prohibit insurers from arbitrarily limiting coverage for mental illness compared to other medical conditions. Respondents were also overwhelmingly supportive of the general concept of mental health insurance parity (or equality), and indicated by a huge majority the willingness to experience modest insurance premium increases in return for parity.           

·         Eighty-three percent of a random sample of 500 registered Michigan voters said they favored parity legislation, compared to less than 10% indicating opposition. 

·         Over 88% of respondents said a person’s health insurance should pay the cost of treatment for mental illness to the same extent that it pays for the cost of treating other medical illnesses.

·         When further asked if achieving mental health parity would be worth a 1-1½ % increase in insurance premiums, more than 77% of respondents said Yes.  (According to national studies, actual cost experience in states with parity laws has been less than 1%.)

·         Ninety-two percent of union households support the general concept of parity;  parity legislation for Michigan was favored by 90%; and 76% said parity was worth an insurance premium increase. 

·         Among respondents from a household where an adult owns or works for a small business, 88% supported the general concept of parity; 82% favored a state law to create parity; and 78% said parity was worth a premium increase. 

“It’s time for our Legislature to recognize that Michigan voters clearly want mental health parity law,” said Partners for Parity coordinator, Mark Reinstein.  He continued, “There may be special interests who oppose parity law, but the voters who elected the legislators obviously want this legislation.  Even those whom legislators have feared would be in opposition (labor and small business households) overwhelmingly want parity.” 

“Discrimination against people with mental illness is still legal in Michigan,” said Reinstein.  “Society would never tolerate arbitrarily limited insurance coverage based on religion, race, ethnicity or gender,” he noted. 

The net effect of this discrimination, Reinstein said, is that individuals and families experiencing mental disorders often have to forego treatment, settle for inadequate care or risk financial devastation to obtain necessary service. One Partners for Parity volunteer was confronted with $70,000 in hospital bills after exceeding her $2,500 annual insurance cap on psychiatric inpatient care.  Another volunteer lost her son to suicide after he reached his benefit limits during a time of psychiatric crisis.           

Reinstein said the time has come for Michigan to join the 32 other states that have adopted parity law.  He called upon the Michigan Legislature to immediately introduce and act upon parity bills and thus, respond to the electorate’s call to end the inexcusable discrimination against adults and children with mental illness.   

Michigan Partners for Parity.