Search

Background: Mental health insurance laws are intended to improve access to needed treatments and prevent discrimination in coverage for mental health conditions and other medical conditions., Objectives: The aim was to estimate the impact of these policies on mental health treatment utilization in a nationally representative longitudinal sample of youth followed through adulthood., Methods: We used data from the 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth and the Mental Health Insurance Laws data set. We specified a zero-inflated negative binomial regression model to estimate the relationship between mental health treatment utilization and law exposure while controlling for other explanatory variables., Results: We found that the number of mental health treatment visits declined as cumulative exposure to mental health insurance legislation increased; a 10 unit (or 10.3%) increase in the law exposure strength resulted in a 4% decline in the number of mental health visits. We also found that state mental health insurance laws are associated with reducing mental health treatments and disparities within at-risk subgroups., Conclusions: Prolonged exposure to comprehensive mental health laws across a person's childhood and adolescence may reduce the demand for mental health visitations in adulthood, hence, reducing the burden on the payors and consumers. Further, as the exposure to the mental health law strengthened, the gap between at-risk subgroups was narrowed or eliminated at the highest policy exposure levels., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Parity in coverage for mental health services has been a longstanding policy aim at the state and federal levels and is a regulatory feature of the Affordable Care Act. Despite the importance and legislative effort involved in these policies, evaluations of their effects on patients yield mixed results. I leverage the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and unique claims-level data that includes information on employers' self-insurance status to shed new light in this area after the implementation of two state parity laws in 2007 and federal parity a few years later. My empirics reveal evidence of strategic avoidance on behalf of insurers in both states prior to the passage of state parity, as well as positive increases in mental health care utilization after parity laws are implemented - but context matters. Policy heterogeneity across states and strategic behaviors by employers and commercial insurers substantively shape the benefits that ultimately flow to patients. Insights from this research have broad relevance to ongoing health policy debates, particularly as states retain great discretion over many health coverage decisions and as federal policy continues to evolve.

As of January 1, 2014, the Affordable Care Act designated mental health and substance use services as an essential health benefit in Marketplace plans and extended parity protections to the individual and small-group markets. We analyzed documents for seventy-eight individual and small-group plans in 2014 (after parity provisions took effect) and sixty comparison plans in 2013 (the year before parity provisions took effect) to understand the degree to which coverage for mental health and substance use care improved relative to medical/surgical benefits. The results suggest that plan issuers did what the provisions required them to do. Although in 2013 a lower proportion of plans covered mental health or substance use care, compared to medical/surgical care, in 2014 the proportions were the same. If essential health benefit requirements were to be removed and mental health and substance use coverage becomes similar to that in 2013, as many as 20 percent of the plans in our sample would not cover these conditions. To determine whether increases in behavioral health coverage will result in improved access to behavioral health services requires complementary data on the size of provider networks and use of services.

The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) of 2008 changed the landscape of mental health and substance use disorder coverage in the United States. The MHPAEA's comprehensiveness compared with past parity laws, including its extension of parity to plan management strategies, the so-called nonquantitative treatment limitations (NQTL), led to significant improvements in mental health care coverage. In this article, we review the history of this landmark legislation and its recent expansions to new populations, describe past research on the effects of this and other mental health/substance use disorder parity laws, and describe some directions for future research, including NQTL compliance issues, effects of parity on individuals with severe mental illness, and measurement of benefits other than mental health care use.

Nonquantitative treatment limitations may be why care for mental health and substance abuse disorders isn't keeping up with coverage gains.

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 self-insured 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 per-member 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., Competing Interests: All other authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.

Objective The Mental Health Parity and Addictions Equality Act (MHPAEA) of 2010 in the United States sought to expand mental health insurance benefits on par with medical benefits. As primary care facilities are often the first step in identifying mental health concerns, it is essential to examine the association of this policy with primary care physicians' choice on depression treatment. Method A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the 2007-2012 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, including a weighted total of 162,699,930 depression patients. Using the Heckman two-step selection procedure, a logistic and a multinomial regression were conducted to examine the association of the MHPAEA with physicians' two-step process of deciding whether and which type of treatment was prescribed. Sociological factors were controlled. Results Treatment was significantly more likely to be provided after the MHPAEA. Psychotherapy was used for treatment for 10.0% of the sample while medication was used for 75.0% of the sample. Patient race/ethnicity, practice setting, physician specialty, and primary source of payment were associated with diverging likelihood of being prescribed depression treatment. Non-Hispanic White patients were more likely to be provided treatment than non-Hispanic Black patients. Patients were less likely to be prescribed only medication than only psychotherapy after the MHPAEA enactment. Conclusions The MHPAEA was associated with primary care providers' decision and choice on depression treatment. Educational and policy interventions aimed at improving physician's understanding of their own treatment tendencies and decreasing barriers to depression treatment may impact the disparities in underserved, minority, and older populations.

Objective: Health plans play a key role in facilitating improvements in population health and may engage in activities that have an impact on access, cost, and quality of behavioral health care. Although behavioral health care is becoming more integrated with general medical care, its delivery system has unique aspects. The study examined how health plans deliver and manage behavioral health care in the context of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). This is a critical time to examine how health plans manage behavioral health care., Methods: A nationally representative survey of private health plans (weighted N=8,431 products; 89% response rate) was conducted in 2010 during the first year of MHPAEA, when plans were subject to the law but before final regulations, and just before the ACA went into effect. The survey addressed behavioral health coverage, cost-sharing, contracting arrangements, medical home innovations, support for technology, and financial incentives to improve behavioral health care., Results: Coverage for inpatient and outpatient behavioral health services was stable between 2003 and 2010. In 2010, health plans were more likely than in 2003 to manage behavioral health care through internal arrangements and to contract for other services. Medical home initiatives were common and almost always included behavioral health, but financial incentives did not. Some plans facilitated providers' use of technology to improve care delivery, but this was not the norm., Conclusions: Health plans are key to mainstreaming and supporting delivery of high-quality behavioral health services. Since 2003, plans have made changes to support delivery of behavioral health services in the context of a rapidly changing environment.

Objective: Recent policy initiatives such as the Affordable Care Act and Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act have expanded coverage of mental health services. However, to what extent the public supports mandated insurance coverage of mental health care relative to other specific medical services is unclear., Methods: This report presents results of a cross-sectional, national poll of the U.S. adult population. Respondents (N=2,124) were asked whether health plans should be required to provide coverage for mental health care and other types of medical services. Logistic regression was used to assess the association of respondent characteristics with support for coverage., Results: Seventy-eight percent (95% confidence interval=75%-81%) of respondents supported mandated coverage of mental health care. This result was higher than support for birth control medications, equivalent to support for oral or dental care, and lower than support for all other medical services., Conclusions: True parity for mental health care may be limited if public support lags behind that for other medical services.

All insurance products sold on the health insurance exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act are required to offer mental health and substance use disorder benefits in compliance with requirements of the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA). This column identifies two dimensions of parity compliance that consumers observe while shopping for insurance products offered on two state-run exchanges. The authors discuss a number of apparent discrepancies with the requirements of MHPAEA in these observable dimensions, emphasizing the potential impact of these factors on consumers' decisions about plan enrollment. The analysis reveals a nuanced picture of how insurance issuers are presenting behavioral health benefits to potential enrollees and illustrates broader concerns about parity compliance and the potential for selection on the exchanges. Four specific discrepancies are highlighted as areas for further evaluation.

Background: Health insurance plans have historically limited the benefits for mental health and substance abuse (MH/SA) services compared to benefits for physical health services. In recent years, legislative and policy initiatives in the U.S. have been taken to expand MH/SA health insurance benefits and achieve parity with physical health benefits. The relevance of these legislations for international audiences is also explored, particularly for the European context., Aims of the Study: This paper reviews the evidence of costs and economic benefits of legislative or policy interventions to expand MH/SA health insurance benefits in the U.S. The objectives are to assess the economic value of the interventions by comparing societal cost to societal benefits, and to determine impact on costs to insurance plans resulting from expansion of these benefits., Methods: The search for economic evidence covered literature published from January 1950 to March 2011 and included evaluations of federal and state laws or rules that expanded MH/SA benefits as well as voluntary actions by large employers. Two economists screened and abstracted the economic evidence of MH/SA benefits legislation based on standard economic and actuarial concepts and methods., Results: The economic review included 12 studies: eleven provided evidence on cost impact to health plans, and one estimated the effect on suicides. There was insufficient evidence to determine if the intervention was cost-effective or cost-saving. However, the evidence indicates that MH/SA benefits expansion did not lead to any substantial increase in costs to insurance plans, measured as a percentage of insurance premiums., Discussion and Limitations: This review is unable to determine the overall economic value of policies that expanded MH/SA insurance benefits due to lack of cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit studies, predominantly due to the lack of evaluations of morbidity and mortality outcomes. This may be remedied in time when long-term MH/SA patient-level data becomes available to researchers. A limitation of this review is that legislations considered here have been superseded by recent legislations that have stronger and broader impacts on MH/SA benefits within private and public insurance: Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA) and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA)., Implications for Future Research: Economic assessments over the long term such as cost per QALY saved and cost-benefit will be feasible as more data becomes available from plans that implemented recent expansions of MH/SA benefits. Results from these evaluations will allow a better estimate of the economic impact of the interventions from a societal perspective. Future research should also evaluate the more downstream effects on business decisions about labor, such as effects on hiring, retention, and the offer of health benefits as part of an employee compensation package. Finally, the economic effect of the far reaching ACA of 2010 on mental health and substance abuse prevalence and care is also a subject for future research.

Prior to the passage of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), about 49 million Americans were uninsured. Among those with employer-sponsored health insurance, 2% had coverage that entirely excluded mental health benefits and 7% had coverage that entirely excluded substance use treatment benefits. The rates of noncoverage for mental and substance use disorder care in the individual health insurance markets are considerably higher. Private health insurance generally limits the extent of these benefits. The combination of MHPEA and ACA extended overall health insurance coverage to more people and expanded the scope of coverage to include mental health and substance abuse benefits.

The intent of parity laws is to improve equity in private insurance coverage for mental health care. The groundbreaking legislation of the 1996 Mental Health Parity Act (MHPA) was initially hailed as a major achievement in improving mental health coverage. However, research suggests that because of political compromises and employer exemptions, the potential impact of the MHPA was weakened. This paper summarizes the extent and scope of the MHPA and the 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, highlighting the goals and accomplishments of each; examines limitations of the legislation, explicitly accounting for exemptions, uninsured Americans, and access to care; and provides recommendations for further improvement and implementation of mental health coverage.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, a number of states passed laws requiring mental health benefits to be included in health insurance coverage. The variation in the characteristics and enactment date of the laws provides an opportunity to measure the impact of increasing access to mental health care on mental health outcomes, as evidenced by state suicide rates. In contrast with previous research, results show that when states enact laws requiring insurance coverage to include mental health benefits at parity with physical health benefits, the suicide rate decreases significantly by 5%. The findings are robust to a number of specifications and falsification tests., (Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objective: In 2014, an estimated 15 million individuals who currently do not have health insurance, including many with chronic mental illness, are expected to obtain coverage through state insurance exchanges. The authors examined how two mechanisms in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), namely, risk adjustment and reinsurance, might perform to ensure the financial solvency of health plans that have a disproportionate share of enrollees with mental health conditions. Risk adjustment is an ACA provision requiring that a federal or state exchange move funds from insurance plans with healthier enrollees to plans with sicker enrollees. Reinsurance is a provision in which all plans in the state contribute to an overall pool of money that is used to reimburse costs to individual market plans for expenditures of any individual enrollee that exceed a high predetermined level., Method: Using 2006--2007 claims data from a sample of private and public health plans, the authors compared expected health plan compensation under diagnosis-based risk adjustment with actual health care expenditures, under different assumptions for chronic mental health and medical conditions. Analyses were conducted with and without the addition of $100,000 reinsurance., Results: Risk adjustment performed well for most plans. For some plans with a high share of enrollees with mental health conditions, underpayment was substantial enough to raise concern. Reinsurance appeared to be helpful in addressing the most serious underpayment problems remaining after risk adjustment. Risk adjustment performed similarly for health plan cohorts that had a disproportionate share of enrollees with chronic mental health and medical conditions., Conclusions: Cost models indicate that the regulatory provisions in the ACA requiring risk adjustment and reinsurance can help protect health plans covering treatment for mentally ill individuals against risk selection. This model analysis may be useful for advocates for individuals with mental illness in considering their own state's insurance exchange.

Background: "Parity" laws remove treatment limitations for mental health and substance-abuse services covered by commercial health plans. A number of studies of parity implementations have suggested that parity does not lead to large increases in utilization or expenditures for behavioral health services. However, less is known about how parity might affect changes in patients' choice of providers for behavioral health treatment., Research Design: We compared initiation and provider choice among 46,470 Oregonians who were affected by Oregon's 2007 parity law. Oregon is the only state to have enacted a parity law that places restrictions on how plans manage behavioral health services. This approach has been adopted federally in the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act. In 1 set of analyses, we assess initiation and provider choice using a difference-in-difference approach, with a matched group of commercially insured Oregonians who were exempt from parity. In a second set of analyses, we assess the impact of distance on provider choice., Results: Overall, parity in Oregon was associated with a slight increase (0.5% to 0.8%) in initiations with masters-level specialists, and relatively little changes for generalist physicians, psychiatrists, and psychologists. Patients are particularly sensitive to distance for nonphysician specialists., Conclusions: Our results suggest that the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act may lead to a shift in the use of nonphysician specialists and away from generalist physicians. The extent to which these changes occur is likely to be contingent on the ease and accessibility of nonphysician specialists.

Objective: The study developed information on behavioral health spending and utilization that can be used to anticipate, evaluate, and interpret changes in health care spending following implementation of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA)., Methods: Data were from the Thomson Reuters' MarketScan database of insurance claims between 2001 and 2009 from large group health plans sponsored by self-insured employers. Annual rates in growth of total health spending and behavioral health spending and the contribution of behavioral health spending to growth in spending for all diseases were determined. Separate analyses examined behavioral health and total health spending by 135 employers in 2008 and 2009, and simulations were conducted to determine how increases in use of mental health services after implementation of parity would affect overall health care expenditures., Results: Across the nine years examined, behavioral health expenditures contributed .3%, on average, to the total rate of growth in all health expenditures, a contribution that fell to .1%, on average, when prescription drugs were excluded. About 2% of employers experienced an increased contribution by behavioral health spending of more than 1%. More than 90% of enrollees used well below the maximum 30 inpatient days or outpatient visits typical of health insurance plans before parity. Simulations indicated that even large increases in utilization would increase total health care expenditures by less than 1%., Conclusions: The MHPAEA is unlikely to have a large effect on the growth rate of employers' health care expenditures. The data provide baseline information to further evaluate the implementation effect of the MHPAEA.

Full parity of health insurance benefits for treatment of mental illness, including substance use disorders, is a major achievement. However, the newly-published regulations implementing the legislation strongly endorse aggressive managed care as a way of containing costs for the new equality of coverage. Reductions in "very long episodes of out-patient care," hospitalization, and provider fees, along with increased utilization, are singled out as achievements of managed care. Medical appropriateness as defined by expert medical panels is to be the basis of authorizing care, though clinicians are familiar with a history of insurance companies' application of "medical necessity" to their own advantage. The regulations do not single out psychotherapy for attention, but long-term psychotherapy geared to the needs of each patient appears to be at risk. The author recommends that the mental health professions strongly advocate for the growing evidence base for psychotherapy including long-term therapy for complex mental disorders; respect for the structure and process of psychotherapy individualized to patients' needs; awareness of the costs of aggressive managed care in terms of money, time, administrative burden, and interference with the therapy; and recognition of the extensive training and experience required to provide psychotherapy as well as the stresses and demands of the work. Parity in out-of-network benefits could lead to aggressive management of care given by non-network practitioners. Since a large percentage of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals stay out of networks, implementation of parity for out-of-network providers will have to be done in a way that respects the conditions under which they would be willing and able to provide services, especially psychotherapy, to insured patients. The shortage of psychiatrists makes this an important access issue for the insured population in need of care.

The mental health community has made tremendous strides in eradicating stigma, demanding policy change, and improving the lives of children and adolescents with mental illnesses, accomplished through advocacy at all government levels and assisted by community involvement. However, addressing access to care for children and adolescents with mental illnesses is still challenging. Legislators are often unaware of children's mental health issues. Advocacy includes working directly with legislators and policy makers, working with a school's administration to meet the unique needs of the child, appealing against the managed care company's denial of specific treatment or formulary approval, and educating and collaborating with primary care physicians. Three principles need to be understood: change takes time, persistence is absolute, and compromise is inevitable.

Objective: This article reports the experiences of health plans, providers, and consumers with California's mental health parity law and discusses implications for implementation of the 2008 federal parity law., Methods: This study used a multimodal data collection approach to assess the first five years of California's parity implementation (from 2000 to 2005). Telephone interviews were conducted with 68 state-level stakeholders, and in-person interviews were conducted with 77 community-based stakeholders. Six focus groups included 52 providers, and six included 32 consumers. A semistructured interview protocol was used. Interview notes and transcripts were coded to facilitate analysis., Results: Health plans eliminated differential benefit limits and cost-sharing requirements for certain mental disorders to comply with the law, and they used managed care to control costs. In response to concerns about access to and quality of care, the state expanded oversight of health plans, issuing access-to-care regulations and conducting focused studies. California's parity law applied to a limited list of psychiatric diagnoses. Health plan executives said they spent considerable resources clarifying which diagnoses were covered at parity levels and concluded that the limited diagnosis list was unnecessary with managed care. Providers indicated that the diagnosis list had unintended consequences, including incentives to assign a more severe diagnosis that would be covered at parity levels, rather than a less severe diagnosis that would not be covered at such levels. The lack of consumer knowledge about parity was widely acknowledged, and consumers in the focus groups requested additional information about parity., Conclusions: Experiences in California suggest that implementation of the 2008 federal parity law should include monitoring health plan performance related to access and quality, in addition to monitoring coverage and costs; examining the breadth of diagnoses covered by health plans; and mounting a campaign to educate consumers about their insurance benefits.

We examine the potential of mental health/substance abuse (MH/SA) parity laws to reduce the out-of-pocket spending burden for outpatient treatment at the state level by exploring cross-state variations and their causes, as well as the provisions of MH/SA parity laws. We find modest (yet important) variation in out-of-pocket burden across states overall, but-because prescription medications account for two-thirds of out-of-pocket spending and are generally beyond the scope of recently enacted federal parity laws-evidence suggests that those laws will do little to reduce the observed burden or its variation. Other policy measures, designed to expand and improve health insurance coverage or reduce racial/ethnic disparities, could have a more profound impact.

A new law prohibiting unequal treatment limits and financial requirements for mental health and substance abuse (MH/SA) benefits establishes critical protections for 113 million Americans. The new parity law doesn't mandate coverage for MH/SA treatment and anticipates management of the benefit. Given these features, clear regulations mapping the intent of the law are critical. Education regarding the costs of untreated or ineffectively treated MH/SA conditions is needed to encourage comprehensive coverage, because academic performance and worker productivity are at stake. As health care reform proceeds, we must use the new law to reinforce the centrality of mental health to overall health.

The huge financial bailout passed in Washington last week also brought relief for another sector: behavioral health. When it becomes effective Jan. 1, 2009, the mental health parity legislation is expected to give more than 100 million people access to coverage and will free providers from treatment limitations. "This is long overdue to cover these illnesses," says Mark Covall, left.

Two current congressional bills mandate parity for benefits for mental disorders with benefits for medical/surgical conditions in private insurance when mental health benefits are provided; the bills differ in regard to benefit levels and access to out-of-network coverage. This study assessed clinicians' and beneficiaries' participation in managed care networks in the national capital area under the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) parity program. Approximately one-third of the clinicians studied participated in FEHB networks, and only 44 percent of FEHB patients received care from network clinicians. Out-of-network mental health benefits are an important policy consideration to ensure access to mental health treatment under parity proposals.

Congress is considering enactment of comprehensive parity legislation. The intent of parity is to equalize private coverage of behavioral and general medical care, thereby improving efficiency and fairness in insurance markets. One issue is whether to extend parity to substance abuse (SA) benefits. In the past, inclusion of substance abuse has been a hurdle to passage of parity. We examine the politics of SA parity, compare coverage trends for substance abuse and mental health, and assess the rationale for equalizing benefits. We conclude that the justification for SA parity is as compelling as it is for mental health parity.

Between 1997 and 2003, the share of workers subject to mental health parity laws greatly increased. But because of exemptions for self-insured firms and small firms, coverage is much lower than a simple tally of state mandates would suggest. Limits on the types of conditions covered further weaken these laws. This paper summarizes the extent and scope of state parity legislation in terms of the number of insured private-sector employees covered. It explicitly accounts for the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) exemption for self-insured plans, exemptions for small employers, and the range of conditions covered by the law.

This article presents estimates of the proportion of the U.S. population that had mental health benefits in 1999, of the extent of their coverage, and of the proportion that were enrolled in health plans subject to the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 (MHPA). Findings indicate that over three-quarters (76%) of the U.S. population had mental health benefits as part of their health insurance. Approximately 18% of the population had no mental health benefits, and for the remaining 6%, mental health benefits could not be determined. Of the 18% with no mental health benefits, most (84%) had no health insurance whatsoever, while the remainder (16%) had health insurance that did not cover mental health benefits. Estimates of the generosity of coverage indicate that 44% of the population had benefits that included prescription drugs, and that provided at least 30 inpatient days and 20 outpatient visits for psychiatric care. For 12% of the population, benefit generosity could not be determined. Finally, study results suggest that the MHPA affected only 42% of the U.S. population.