<?xml version="1.0"?>
<oembed><version>1.0</version><provider_name>KFF Health News</provider_name><provider_url>https://kffhealthnews.org</provider_url><author_name>brilabuskes</author_name><author_url>https://kffhealthnews.org/news/author/brilabuskes/</author_url><title>Ruling Expected In Case Over Insurer Coverage Limits On Mental Health Care Services - KFF Health News</title><type>rich</type><width>600</width><height>338</height><html>&lt;blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="GCtn1dG7sQ"&gt;&lt;a href="https://kffhealthnews.org/morning-breakout/ruling-expected-in-case-over-insurer-coverage-limits-on-mental-health-care-services/"&gt;Ruling Expected In Case Over Insurer Coverage Limits On Mental Health Care Services&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;iframe sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" src="https://kffhealthnews.org/morning-breakout/ruling-expected-in-case-over-insurer-coverage-limits-on-mental-health-care-services/embed/#?secret=GCtn1dG7sQ" width="600" height="338" title="&#x201C;Ruling Expected In Case Over Insurer Coverage Limits On Mental Health Care Services&#x201D; &#x2014; KFF Health News" data-secret="GCtn1dG7sQ" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" class="wp-embedded-content"&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;&lt;script type="text/javascript"&gt;
/* &lt;![CDATA[ */
/*! This file is auto-generated */
!function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&amp;&amp;d.addEventListener&amp;&amp;"undefined"!=typeof URL&amp;&amp;(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&amp;&amp;!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i&lt;o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i&lt;a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&amp;&amp;(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3&lt;(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r&lt;200&amp;&amp;(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&amp;&amp;(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&amp;&amp;n.host===r.host&amp;&amp;l.activeElement===s&amp;&amp;(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r&lt;s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document);
/* ]]&gt; */
&lt;/script&gt;
</html><description>The impact of the ruling in the consolidated cases of Wit v. United Behavioral Health and Alexander v. United Behavioral Health could ripple across the country as many providers and patients say that, despite laws requiring insurers to cover behavioral care on parity with care for physical conditions, they often encounter significant problems getting carriers to pay for needed treatment.</description></oembed>
