Last week’s post on relational disorders brought this response from family therapist and U of MN professor Bill Doherty:
Griff, The other side of the relational disorders issue is that it’s a Trojan Horse into the medical model, undermining the notion that the only problems worth treating and supporting financially with insurance are brain dysfunctions. Right now, we do not pay for marital therapy to save a marriage, but will pay for individual therapy for each spouse and each kid after the marriage breaks up. Nothing gets reimbursed that is not coded in DSM-IV, so I’m for expanded the idea of what is worth treating. I see the other side, too, of medicalizing all problems. But I think we can change the idea of what a medical problem is.
Dust adds a comment along this line, too.
I, too, would like to expand the idea of what’s worth treating and having it covered by insurance.
My mother and my wife and I are seeing a family therapist right now, trying to resolve some old issues that have been messing us up for a decade or more. My Blue Cross coverage pays for part of the therapy because I’m the designated patient. My diagnosis: Adjustment disorder with anxiety. Which is a crock of shit, of course — we’re just stuck.
I’m assuming some insurance companies offer premium coverage for family therapy, much like they do for alcohol and drug treatment, but I don’t know how widespread the practice is.