Forty-nine states have passed laws to help ensure that insurance coverage for mental health conditions is on par with coverage for general medical conditions. Two studies this month examine how these laws affect services. To assess the impact of Oregon’s 2007 parity law, Neal T. Wallace, Ph.D., and K. John McConnell, Ph.D., compared follow-up care after psychiatric hospitalization of patients enrolled in insurance plans differentially affected by the law. Follow-up rates increased among enrollees in parity plans. Persons with serious mental illnesses and children and young adults, who in the past were more likely to have met coverage limits, were most likely to benefit (page 961). Lucy A. Bilaver, Ph.D., and Neil Jordan, Ph.D., examined effects of parity laws, which vary widely by state, on access to autism services for privately insured children. They found that higher out-of-pocket costs may be offsetting improved access. Families in states with strict parity laws were more likely to report annual out-of-pocket spending greater than $1,000. Families in states where the strict laws specifically included autism were the most likely to report unreasonable out-of-pocket expenses (page 967). In Taking Issue, Howard H. Goldman, M.D., Ph.D., notes that the nature of these and similar studies underscores our high expectations of parity (page 939).