Search

Objective Did mental health cost-sharing decrease following implementation of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA)? Data Source Specialty mental health copayments, coinsurance, and deductibles, 2008–2013, were obtained from benefits databases for “carve-in” plans from a national commercial managed behavioral health organization. Study Design Bivariate and regression-adjusted analyses compare the probability of use and (conditional) level of cost-sharing pre- and postparity. An interaction term is added to compare differential levels of pre- and postparity cost-sharing changes for plans that were and were not already at parity pre-MHPAEA. Findings Controlling for employer/plan characteristics, MHPAEA is associated with higher intermediate care copayments ($15.9) but lower outpatient ($2.6) copayments among in-network-only plans. Among plans with in- and out-of-network benefits, MHPAEA is associated with lower inpatient ($23.2) and outpatient ($2.5) copayments, but increases in inpatient and intermediate in-network and out-of-network coinsurance (about 1 percentage point). Among the few plans not at parity pre-MHPAEA, changes in use and level of cost-sharing associated with MHPAEA were more dramatic. Conclusion Mixed evidence that MHPAEA led to more generous mental health benefits may stem from the finding that many plans were already at parity pre-MHPAEA. Future policy focus in mental health may shift to slowing growth in cost-sharing for all health services.

Copyright © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. Objective: The federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) sought to eliminate historical disparities between insurance coverage for behavioral health (BH) treatment and coverage for medical treatment. Our objective was to evaluate MHPAEA's impact on BH expenditures and utilization among "carve-in" enrollees. Methods: We received specialty BH insurance claims and eligibility data from Optum, sampling 5,987,776 adults enrolled in selfinsured plans from large employers. An interrupted time series study design with segmented regression analysis estimated monthly time trends of per-member spending and use before (2008-2009), during (2010), and after (2011-2013) MHPAEA compliance (N = 179,506,951 member-month observations). Outcomes included: total, plan, patient out-of-pocket spending; outpatient utilization (assessment/diagnostic evaluation visits, medication management, individual and family psychotherapy); intermediate care utilization (structured outpatient, day treatment, residential); and inpatient utilization. Results: MHPAEA was associated with increases in monthly permember total spending, plan spending, assessment/diagnostic evaluation visits [respective immediate increases of: $1.05 (P = 0.02); $0.88 (P = 0.04); 0.00045 visits (P = 0.00)], and individual psychotherapy visits [immediate increase of 0.00578 visits (P = 0.00) and additional increases of 0.00017 visits/mo (P = 0.03)]. Conclusions: MHPAEA was associated with modest increases in total and plan spending and outpatient utilization; for example, in July 2012 predicted per-enrollee plan spending was $4.92 without MHPAEA and $6.14 with MHPAEA. Efforts should focus on understanding how other barriers to BH care unaddressed by MHPAEA may affect access/utilization. Future research should evaluate effects produced by the Affordable Care Act's inclusion of BH care as an essential health benefit and expansion of MHPAEA protections to the individual and small group markets.

© 2016 Elsevier B.V. Interrupted time series with and without controls was used to evaluate whether the federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) and its Interim Final Rule increased the probability of specialty behavioral health treatment and levels of utilization and expenditures among patients receiving treatment. Linked insurance claims, eligibility, plan and employer data from 2008 to 2013 were used to estimate segmented regression analyses, allowing for level and slope changes during the transition (2010) and post-MHPAEA (2011–2013) periods. The sample included 1,812,541 individuals ages 27–64 (49,968,367 person-months) in 10,010 Optum “carve-out” plans. Two-part regression models with Generalized Estimating Equations were used to estimate expenditures by payer and outpatient, intermediate and inpatient service use. We found little evidence that MHPAEA increased utilization significantly, but somewhat more robust evidence that costs shifted from patients to plans. Thus the primary impact of MHPAEA among carve-out enrollees may have been a reduction in patient financial burden.