Skip to main content
A rule that decides appeals

Mental health parity: the plan must prove its limits are comparable

A plan that covers mental health or substance-use treatment may not apply prior authorization, step therapy, network rules or medical-necessity standards more stringently than it applies them to medical and surgical care, and it must produce a comparative analysis of those limits on request. Ask for the analysis; many denials cannot survive it.

Last reviewed Sep 11, 2026 · General information, not legal advice · Apellica is not a law firm · the plan documents and the letter control

When it applies

  • Denials of residential treatment, intensive outpatient, ABA, psychotherapy frequency, medication-assisted treatment
  • Employer plans (ERISA), marketplace and most individual plans

Where it does not

  • Original Medicare (not subject to MHPAEA)
  • Retiree-only and some small self-funded church plans

The sentence to put in the appeal

Please provide, as 29 CFR 2590.712(c)(4) and the plan's disclosure obligations require, the comparative analysis demonstrating that the non-quantitative treatment limitation applied here [prior authorization / concurrent review / medical-necessity criteria] is comparable to and applied no more stringently than the corresponding limitation on medical/surgical benefits in the same classification, together with the medical-necessity criteria for both.

Replace the bracketed parts with your facts. Cite the regulation exactly as written; quote the plan’s own wording next to it.

How to use it

  1. Step 1

    Name the limitation

    Concurrent review every three days, a residential 'fail-first' rule, a network exclusion: identify the mechanism the plan used.

  2. Step 2

    Ask for the medical/surgical comparison

    The plan must show how the same kind of limit works on the medical side. Vague answers are themselves a finding.

  3. Step 3

    Complain to the regulator in parallel

    The Department of Labor and state insurance departments enforce parity and take complaints alongside your appeal.

Worked example

Residential treatment for an eating disorder was cut off after ten days under a plan guideline. The appeal requested the comparative analysis; the plan could not show an equivalent limit for medical rehabilitation stays and approved the remaining days.

Illustrative composite; details vary by plan and record. Outcomes are not guaranteed.

Go deeper

Ask an AI assistant about this page:ChatGPTPerplexityGoogle AIClaudeOpens in a new tab with a question about this page. Nothing about you is sent.

Sources

Want it written for you?

Upload the denial letter. A senior reviewer reads it within 24 hours, tells you in writing which rules apply and whether it can be appealed, and Apellica prepares the appeal with the citations. $0 upfront, 10% of what is recovered, nothing if we do not recover. Not a law firm.

Start a free denial review →

More levers