The Effects of Mental Health Parity on Spending and Utilization for Bipolar, Major Depression, and Adjustment Disorders

American Journal of Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 12.3). 02/2013; 170(2):180-7. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12030392
Source: PubMed


The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act requires insurance parity for mental health/substance use disorder and general medical services. Previous research found that parity did not increase mental health/substance use disorder spending and lowered out-of-pocket spending. Whether parity's effects differ by diagnosis is unknown. The authors examined this question in the context of parity implementation in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program.

The authors compared mental health/substance use disorder treatment use and spending before and after parity (2000 and 2002, respectively) for two groups: FEHB enrollees diagnosed in 1999 with bipolar disorder, major depression, or adjustment disorder (N=19,094) and privately insured enrollees unaffected by the policy in a comparison national sample (N=10,521). Separate models were fitted for each diagnostic group. A difference-in-difference design was used to control for secular time trends and to better reflect the specific impact of parity on spending and utilization.

Total spending was unchanged among enrollees with bipolar disorder and major depression but decreased for those with adjustment disorder (-$62, 99.2% CI=-$133, -$11). Out-of-pocket spending decreased for all three groups (bipolar disorder: -$148, 99.2% CI=-$217, -$85; major depression: -$100, 99.2% CI=-$123, -$77; adjustment disorder: -$68, 99.2% CI=-$84, -$54). Total annual utilization (e.g., medication management visits, psychotropic prescriptions, and mental health/substance use disorder hospitalization bed days) remained unchanged across all diagnoses. Annual psychotherapy visits decreased significantly only for individuals with adjustment disorders (-12%, 99.2% CI=-19%, -4%).

Parity implemented under managed care improved financial protection and differentially affected spending and psychotherapy utilization across groups. There was some evidence that resources were preferentially preserved for diagnoses that are typically more severe or chronic and reduced for diagnoses expected to be less so.

9 Reads
  • Source
    American Journal of Psychiatry 02/2013; 170(2):140-2. DOI:10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12101334 · 12.30 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To determine whether comprehensive behavioral health parity leads to changes in expenditures for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI), who are likely to be in greatest need for services that could be outside of health plans' traditional limitations on behavioral health care. Data Sources/Study SettingWe studied the effects of a comprehensive parity law enacted by Oregon in 2007. Using claims data, we compared expenditures for individuals in four Oregon commercial plans from 2005 through 2008 to a group of commercially insured individuals in Oregon who were exempt from parity. Study DesignWe used difference-in-differences and difference-in-difference-in-differences analyses to estimate changes in spending, and quantile regression methods to assess changes in the distribution of expenditures associated with parity. Principal FindingsAmong 2,195 individuals with SMI, parity was associated with increased expenditures for behavioral health services of $333 (95 percent CI $67, $615), without corresponding increases in out-of-pocket spending. The increase in expenditures was primarily attributable to shifts in the right tail of the distribution. Conclusions Oregon's parity law led to higher average expenditures for individuals with SMI. Parity may allow individuals with high mental health needs to receive services that may have been limited without parity regulations.
    Health Services Research 04/2013; 48(5). DOI:10.1111/1475-6773.12058 · 2.78 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: While provocative findings from large epidemiological studies suggest that mental disorders and/or elevated psychiatric symptoms are independent risk factors for the incidence and recurrence of coronary heart disease (CHD), other studies do not replicate this somewhat startling finding.(1-3) This research has been characterized by incomplete adjustment for confounders, by wide variation in the assessment of mental disorders, and by inconsistent inclusion of multiple mental disorders and overlapping symptom clusters. For incident CHD, the most convincing evidence comes from prospective studies linking a diagnosis of depression or the presence of elevated depressive symptoms with later occult CHD.(3) And, although there have been tantalizing glimpses of associations of other types of mental disorders, such as alcohol/substance-use disorder, anxiety, and schizophrenia, with incident CHD, there are a paucity of studies examining this risk. Indeed, we conducted a preliminary search of the prospective epidemiological literature on the association of mental disorders with incident CHD and found that out of 123 results retrieved, approximately 60% focused uniquely on depression, 10% on alcohol/substance use disorder, 11% on anxiety or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and 14% on psychosis or schizophrenia. Thus, outstanding questions about the nature and consistency of the association of specific types of mental disorders--other than depression--and incident CHD remain.
    Circulation 11/2013; 129(2). DOI:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.006515 · 14.43 Impact Factor
Show more


9 Reads
Available from