Amid our society’s increasing focus on all things mental health, the federal government is abandoning individuals with mental health needs. The Department of Justice recently announced it would not enforce 2024 regulations that strengthened a 2008 federal law around mental health parity — the requirement that insurers treat mental health and physical health similarly. The department further signaled it might even seek to rescind the new regulations altogether.

This is more than a regulatory reset. It’s a dangerous reversal with direct and dire consequences. It betrays not only those struggling with mental illness but the very idea that mental and physical health deserve equal treatment.

As a mental health attorney, I work with families every day who are fighting with everything they have to preserve the well-being of loved ones with serious mental illness. Too often, this includes seeking out every possible benefit to best cover the costs of care and supportive services.

Last year's revised parity rule provided real help to these families. It mandated that insurers offer "meaningful" mental health benefits and established clear compliance and enforcement standards. Years of stakeholder feedback shaped these regulations, which health advocates celebrated as a significant advancement. All this progress is now in jeopardy.

The ERISA Industry Committee, representing large employers, contested the new rules in court, claiming they result in excessive costs. Nonetheless, their proposal to cut mental health coverage should send a warning to every American. Eliminating coverage merely shifts this financial burden to families, emergency rooms, law enforcement and our overstrained mental health care systems. The cost of untreated mental illness is measured in lost productivity, higher disability claims, repeated hospitalizations and incarcerations, and, too often, lives lost to suicide.

Our legal and regulatory systems continue to reflect a profound bias. Some insurers already exploit loopholes to deny care in ways that would be unthinkable for physical conditions. Some drop coverage the moment a patient shows even the smallest improvement, punishing progress rather than supporting recovery. Others impose far more restrictive preauthorization requirements or higher out-of-pocket costs for psychiatric care. These practices violate the spirit of parity and are exactly why clear federal rules and enforcement are necessary.

When parity enforcement becomes optional, access to care becomes conditional — and those conditions are seldom in favor of the patient. Abandoning this policy during a youth mental health crisis, as formally recognized by multiple U.S. medical groups in 2021, is nothing short of negligence. Parity laws are not aspirational. They are the law. And like any civil rights protection, they mean little without meaningful enforcement. Just as labor laws require oversight to prevent exploitation, parity requires oversight to prevent discrimination against those with mental illness.

If we believe mental health matters, and the data shows we must, then the enforcement of parity cannot be optional. It must be prioritized, funded and upheld. Families should not have to endure endless struggle to obtain care they’ve already been promised.

This guest essay reflects the views of Carolyn Reinach Wolf, executive partner at the Abrams Fensterman law firm and director of its mental health law practice.