Any mental disorder is bioligically based - is the brain not part of your phisiology?

Sounds like this company is just looking for a reason not to help them.

Yeah, but it also said the insurance companies are requesting emails- emails are written by someone to another person, not the same as public info on Facebook, etc.

And some families want to be able to spend time with both parents, so the work and the parenting is divided more equally.

some things you have to work through

you have to do more than just get them to eat, you have to get them to do it for themselves, because you can't spend your whole life forcing them to do the right thing

it is true that our living conditions are part of the problem, but the environment can't really be removed

I'd say you're missing the point on needing a parent at home. Kids don't necessarily 'need' one parent at home, they just need to be cared for. Probably 'ideal' would go beyond having *only* one parent at home. Ideal would probably be you have a farm or home business and the family works together so you have both parents around. Or parents that trade off who works so the kids get to have time with each parent.

Even children who have a parent at home can be short-changed by parents who don't really interact with their kids.

Attention and care is the issue, and that can be provided even if both parents work.

WOW, the sheer number of stories on this site of how unethical US insurance companies and hospitals are makes me glad I live in a country with free healthcare and medicine for all. I can walk in to any hospital present the government issued healthcard and get treated ont he spot, I wonder how long it willt ake the US government to work out, like Australia, France, UK and Canada have, that the cost of treatment is far outweighed by lost revenue from taxes, not only personal income tax but also business tax, as it has a flow on affect to consumer spending and productivity aswell.

Yes I AM calling parents who both insist on working bad. My father worked 3 jobs so that my mother could stay home and raise me and my brother. Other parents could do the same. Or they could drive a 20 year old car like we did instead of the 2 new SUVs in the garage. They can also drop cable TV, High speed internet, and eat at home instead of going out. Raising kids is supposed to be a sacrifice.

WTF. I once knew someone with anorexia, they died. I believe their death was considered "biologically based".

WOW. Good job to the pencil pushing dickhead at Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield that decided that lame ass idea would work. Did they get a bonus?

Shame, shame, shame on U.S. Magistrate Judge Patty Shwartz.

@ampersand
No I'm not a scientologist - trolling? I am a mental health professional and in my part of town we don't typically use "bilogical" in our lingo. We use things like "oranically based". . . I consider most mental illness to be effected by both internal causes and external causes. Like someone who may be a "worrier" but their mugged and their worrying has evolved into a diagnosable mental illnes because they are afraid to leave their house for 2 years . I only work in an in-patient psychaitric hospital though - so what do I know.

I long for the good old days when that was supposed to protect you from child molesters, not insurance companies.

@Gorky: It's general knowledge that Anorexia is classified as a legitimate mental disorder (along with a whole host of other disorders that self-appointed "perfect" people insist don't exist).

I'm sure all the parents and friends of Anorexia victims who have committed suicide would agree that the victim was "just trying to get attention."(/sarcasm)

It's common sense. You're skinny, then eat. Too many people overanalyze stuff. Its like this epidemic of supposed ADD in kids. When I went to school there was no such thing (and it was only 20 years ago). Some kids had bad parents who worked instead of staying home and raising them when they were young and they acted out. They were paddled for it IN SCHOOL and they didnt act up again. ADD is an excuse for bad parenting. So instead of punishing the kids we make up a disease and drug them to calm them down. Ridiculous

Schizophrenia is a mental illness with known biological components. If I were schizophrenic, and I wrote about hearing voices on my blog, would that somehow prove that it wasn't biological and the insurance company didn't have to cover me?

I don't know what on earth the insurance companies hope to find in some teenage girl's blog entries beyond confirmation that she thinks she's fat.

Oh and the cure for anorexia is simple and cheap (no insurance necessary), It's called EAT something

No. Anorexia is a condition that people who are vain bring on themselves. They dont eat because they think they are fat. Its not biological and not mental. They are just vain people who think they have to make everyone think they are sexy.

Some people produce an abnormally high amount of (serotonin?) some neurotransmitter which makes them extremely anxious in general. Then, starving themselves stops production of a certain protein and then actually balances out the neurotransmitter levels. I forget the details, but this was all from a news article about a study or something.

Ugh, I'm surprised that people have failed to mention that a user's Facebook profile is NOT open to the entire public. Only users within that person's network have any access to a person's profile, and much of the content is only available to user's friends by default.

With the myriad of privacy controls on Facebook, the website doesn't intend a uesr's content to be disseminated to everyone.

This is highly disturbing.

The general consensus (amongst those who are neither Scientologists nor Freudians) is that, to a significant degree, mental illness has a biological basis - chemical imbalances, genetic wiring - in what is considered more "extreme," like schizophrenia, there is, in fact, visible evidence on a brain scan.

I'm not really sure what evidence BC/BS is trying to get here, either. Are they just trying to prove that these girls have eating disorders? Is it necessary, then, to take actions that could have very negative psychological ramifications? Or are they going to claim that a 14-year-old girl claiming that she's happy this way, she wants to be this way, and she behaves in ways that make it worse, somehow means it's not biologically based...?

I used to have Horizon Blue Cross/Blue Shield in NJ. I also have a generalized anxiety disorder marked by panic episodes and obsessive-compulsive behavior, and major depression. These problems manifested themselves in an eating disorder. Thank god my psychiatric treatment was through a no-cost program at a med school, but I wonder now if they'll even threaten to stop prescription coverage for psychotropics provided as a part of treatment.

Myspace and facebook-- yeah, that's okay as long as you can prove that that profile belongs to the person in question.
Looking at a diary or personal emails? Not so much I think.

There are a ton of "pro-anorexia" communities on Livejournal so this doesn't really surprise me. It's highly unfortunate that people who are suffering and choose to write about it online are being punished but I can't help but think the people that call themselves "ana" and ask for tips on how best to not pass out while they only drink water all day are at least somewhat to blame for insurance companies being wary.

The state of our mental health system is so sad.

It's a civil litigation matter if the insurance company chooses to make it one. This is a typical discovery request and is par for course.

That's not to say that the extended level of doucehbaggery on part of said insurance company isn't disgusting.

And that's not touching on the "New Jersey law requires coverage of mental illness only if it is biologically based," part of the article. Anybody who is an expert on the subject, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but have we even reached a consensus about the role of biology in causing mental illness? How exactly are we supposed to determine this on a case by case basis? Especially given the extremely loose interpretations one could take on either end of the spectrum.

Wouldn't it be catastrophically traumatic for children suffering from mental conditions, when a faceless corporation that was supposed to be helping them, mercilessly violates their privacy, slits its throat, chops it into pieces and throws it into a ditch? I can't imagine a more perverse course of action for a health insurance company to take than forcing children into court and exposing their most private writings.

It doesn't matter if they posted it on a portion of the internet that is, technically, public. That won't make them feel any better about it. You really think every kid using social networks operates under the assumption that one day, everything they write will become part of the public record when an insurance company takes them to court?

The fact that they would even try to pull this shit is unforgivable.

In the case of anorexia, the illness (I believe) is psychological in nature. An extremely thin person might not be anorexic but other biological clues (wearing down of the esophagus from vomiting, unhealthy, gaunt features) give indication that a person who is very thin but looks physically unhealthy may be anorexic.

@dragonflylotus: Somebody ought to start a social networking site called WrongSpace.com, for people who want to lay out as much disinformation about themselves as possible.

UGH! Ya just gotta love it when insurance companies do everything under the sun in an attempt to weasel out of doing what they were paid to do.

Sorry to say, but many mental illnesses are considered a "biologically based disease." Various eating disorders can be influenced by things such as major depression and bi-polar disorder - which are considered "biological." Regardless, eating disorders are very serious and for an insurance plan to not treat any disorder classified in the DSM (bible for psychiatrists and mental health workers) should not be allowed unless pre-established by the insurance coverage.

Why is anyone surprised at this? When you post on the internet, you're posting for the world to see, regardless if the people who see it are your girlfriends or scumbag insurance companies. Here's a hint: instead of whinning about your food problems on myspace, talk to your parents or *gasp* your doctor about the problem; if they were subpoena'ed than that would be invasion of privacy.

Heres a tip : Go to www.nocards.org and read up on this. Best of luck in getting out of the datebases...

My new personal mission is to wipe myself out of every database in existence (or at least provide enough false information to confuse the hell out of anybody trying to track my behavior). Of course, since being dead is not even enough to get out of a cell contract, my efforts may have little effect.

If it is set to be private does it still apply? That would mean you would show it only to those you wish to see it. Public when regard to a diary would be like you publishing it in a newspaper, if you have it so only those you want to see it can, that it straight privacy there. Shame on this judge for invading her privacy.

Welcome to capitalism!
No wonder the world hates us- I hate us too!

With insurance you get what you pay for. If you're only covered for "biologically based" illnesses, then mental illness isn't covered. Fair enough to use PUBLIC records to establish whether or not the illness is actually covered by the insurance policy.

Of course, if you want the insurance companies to pay for every claim, then it wouldn't matter if the root cause of the illness was biologically based or not. Hope no-one minds paying much higher insurance premiums though. And those that can't pay the higher premiums would have no cover at all. Unless they opted for insurance that had some specific exclusions, for example mental illness. Hey, that's what they have already!

This is a perfect example of how insurance companies take your premiums every month and then when you need them to pay a claim are willing to use every excuse in the book (and as this story indicates, invent entire new ones!) to avoid having to pay up.

2011: (Insurance lawyer in front of a packed court room)

" Mr. Snarkysnake, I see here by your supermarket loyalty card that over the last 4 years you have purchased over 200 six packs of Old Milwaukee beer,over 190 packages of Oreos and countless "party size" bags of Lays Potato Chips. Can you tell the court why Purple Cross/Purple Shield should pay for the stent that you CLAIM is needed to save your life "?

Mr. Snarkysnake: "Aggghhh ! My heart "! (gasping for air)

See how easily we GIVE our rights away ?

Does a court really need to dissect some poor kid's miserable diary entries to figure out if a disease is biologically based?

Diary entries, no. Facebook is a public web site. If you post stuff for the public to see, you should expect others to see it.

And as the article points out, this ruling actually reduced the scope of an earlier ruling, such that only information published to public websites fell under discovery.