Demand response of mental health services to cost sharing under managed care

Harvard Global Health Initiative, 104 Mt. Auburn Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics (Impact Factor: 0.97). 10/2008; 11(3):113-25.
Source: PubMed


Higher demand-side cost sharing on mental health services than on general health services has been justified in economic terms because the demand response for mental health services has been found to be higher under traditional indemnity plans, and the welfare loss associated with insurance is higher while the risk spreading benefits were similar. The empirical studies of demand response for mental health services under fee-for-service health care delivery systems provide the supporting evidence. With the ascendance of managed care, the context in which demand-side cost sharing is imposed today differs from the context in which most of the empirical literature rests due to the presence of managed care. The economics of parity under managed care needs to be under re-examination.
This study measures demand response of mental health services to cost-sharing under managed health care and compares it to demand response under traditional indemnity plans.
The 1996 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data are used because this is the only year in which sufficient detail is available on coverage and forms of insurance in order to make the desired comparison. To address the selection problem, we focus on employees (and their dependents) who are privately insured and who have no choice of health plan. Couples with more than one insurance plan are also excluded from the analysis. We use logit models to analyze the effect of prices on the probability of any ambulatory mental health uses. We compare the estimated demand response to demand-side cost sharing between managed care plans and non-managed care plans by examining how demand prices affect the likelihood of seeking mental health services.
In the range observed, deductibles have no significant impact on the likelihood of utilization for either indemnity or managed care plans. The coinsurance rate has a significant negative effect on seeking mental health services under indemnity plans. The effect of the coinsurance rate on demand under managed care plans is significantly smaller than that under indemnity plans and not significantly different from zero. Managed care itself decreases rates of utilization.
Results in this study are consistent with the findings from the literature on mental health parity. The evidence suggests that mental health utilization is controlled by management under managed care and not primarily by out of pocket prices paid by consumers. Limitations include the small number of HMO enrollees and the current method can not entirely eliminate a concern about selection bias. IMPLICATION FOR HEALTH POLICY: Efficiency argument against parity of benefits for mental health care may not apply to managed care settings. At the same time, parity may accomplish less than mental health parity advocacy groups expect under managed care in terms of increasing access. IMPLICATION FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Managed care continues to evolve, take many forms, and uses a number of rationing devices. It is important to conduct studies to isolate the effects of the components of managed care on utilization among different patient groups.

Download full-text


Available from: Richard G Frank,
28 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To review the research on economic and systemic barriers faced by adolescents needing treatment for alcohol and drug problems, particularly those with co-occurring conditions. We reviewed the literature on adolescent access to alcohol and drug services, including early intervention, and integrated and specialty mental health treatment for those with co-occurring disorders, examining the role of health care systems, public policy (health reform), treatment financing and reimbursement systems (public and private), implementation of evidence-based practices, confidentiality practices, and treatment costs and cost/benefits. Barriers to treatment, particularly integrated treatment, are largely rooted in our organizationally fragmented health care system, which encompasses public and private, carved-out and integrated systems, and different funding mechanisms (Medicaid versus block grants versus private insurance that include "high deductible" plans and other cost controls.) In both systems, carved-out programs de-link services from other mental health and general health care. Barriers are also rooted in disciplinary differences and weak clinical linkages between psychiatry, primary care and substance use, and in confidentiality policies that inhibit communication and coordination, while protecting patient privacy. In this era of health care reform, we have the opportunity to increase access for adolescents and develop new models of integrated services for those with co-occurring conditions. We discuss opportunities for improving treatment access and implementation of evidence-based practices, examine implications of health reform and parity legislation for psychiatric and substance use treatment, and comment on key unanswered questions and future research opportunities.
    Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 07/2010; 49(7):637-46; quiz 725-6. DOI:10.1016/j.jaac.2010.03.019 · 7.26 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This Article analyzes the initial efforts of the Federal Department of Health and Human Services to implement the essential mental health and substance use disorder services benefit required by section 1302(b)(1)(E) of the Affordable Care Act and proposes the adoption of a comprehensive and specific essential mental health and substance use disorder benefit set. At a minimum, the benefit set should cover medically necessary and evidence-based inpatient and outpatient mental healthcare services, inpatient substance abuse detoxification services, inpatient and outpatient substance abuse rehabilitation services, emergency mental healthcare services, prescription drugs for mental health conditions, participation in psychiatric disease management programs, and community-based mental healthcare services.
    American journal of law & medicine 06/2012; 38(2-3):471-515. · 1.44 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This Article is the second, and most important, installment in a three-part series that presents a comprehensive challenge to lingering legal distinctions between physical and mental illness. The basic impetus for this historical, medical, and legal project is a belief that there exists no rational or consistent method of distinguishing physical and mental illness in the context of health insurance law. The first installment in this series narrowly inquired as to whether a particular set of disorders, the postpartum mood disorders, are or should be classified as physical or mental illnesses in a range of health law contexts.1 This second installment is broader in scope and challenges the less comprehensive public and private health insurance benefits that are available to individuals who have illnesses traditionally classified as mental. In so doing, this Article proposes a reform of federal mental health insurance law. The third and final piece in the series undertakes a necessary correction of state mental health parity law.2 Throughout this three-part project, the aim is to bring greater attention to the origins and evolution of the concept of health and to discredit the notion that individuals with mental health conditions are less deserving of legal protection and benefits than individuals with physical health conditions. The purpose of this particular piece is to explore in greater detail the reasons offered by legislators, regulators, judges, insurers, and other stakeholders for providing less comprehensive insurance benefits for individuals with mental illness, and to question the logic, scientific bases, and empirical accuracy of these reasons. In the end, this Article argues that federal health insurance law should not continue to discriminate against individuals with mental illness without adequate justification. Finding none, this Article proposes a reform of federal mental health insurance law.
    Harvard journal on legislation 01/2012; 49(1). · 1.57 Impact Factor
Show more