State Variations In The Out-Of-Pocket Spending Burden For Outpatient Mental Health Treatment

Center for Financing, Access, and Cost Trends, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, in Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Health Affairs (Impact Factor: 4.97). 05/2009; 28(3):713-22. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.28.3.713
Source: PubMed


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.

3 Reads
  • Source
    • "Interest in and familiarity with an issue can often help to foster understanding and decrease misperceptions and stereotypes (Corrigan et al. 2001b; Zuvekas and Meyerhoefer 2009). In contrast, lack of familiarity can lead to stigma and can affect help-seeking and disclosure of MH/SA problems and subsequently lower recognition of the prevalence of MH/SA disorders among the general population. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Insurance coverage for mental health services has historically lagged behind other types of health services. We used a simulation exercise in which groups of laypersons deliberate about healthcare tradeoffs. Groups deciding for their "community" were more likely to select mental health coverage than individuals. Individual prioritization of mental health coverage, however, increased after group discussion. Participants discussed: value, cost and perceived need for mental health coverage, moral hazard and community benefit. A deliberative exercise in priority-setting led a significant proportion of persons to reconsider decisions about coverage for mental health services. Deliberations illustrated public-spiritedness, stigma and significant polarity of views.
    Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 03/2011; 39(3):158-69. DOI:10.1007/s10488-011-0341-4 · 3.44 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although recognition and treatment of mental health disorders have become integrated into routine medical care, inequities remain regarding limits on mental health outpatient visits and higher copayments and deductibles required for mental health services when accessed. Two federal laws were passed by Congress in 2008: The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act and the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act. Both laws became effective on January 1, 2010. The purpose of this article is to discuss provisions of each act and provide clinical examples describing how patients are affected by lack of parity and may potentially benefit from implementation of these new laws. Using available evidence, we examine the potential strengths and limitations of mental health parity legislation from the health policy perspectives of health care access, cost, and quality and identify the important role of nurses as patient and mental health parity advocates.
    Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services 09/2010; 48(9):26-34. DOI:10.3928/02793695-20100730-06 · 0.72 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The cost of mental health services has always been a great barrier to accessing care for people with mental health problems. This article documents changes in insurance coverage and cost for mental health services for people with public insurance, private insurance, and no coverage. In 2009-10 people with mental health problems were more likely to have public insurance and less likely to have private insurance than in 1999-2000. Although access to specialty care remained relatively stable for people with mental illnesses, cost barriers to care increased among the uninsured and the privately insured who had serious mental illnesses. The rise in cost barriers among those with private insurance suggests that the current financing of care in the private insurance market is insufficient to alleviate cost burdens and has implications for reforms under the Affordable Care Act. People with mental health problems who are newly eligible to purchase private insurance under the act might still encounter high cost barriers to accessing care.
    Health Affairs 10/2013; 32(10):1723-1730. DOI:10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0133 · 4.97 Impact Factor
Show more

Similar Publications