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.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
[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.
Full-text · Article · Jul 2010 · Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
[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.
Preview · Article · Jun 2012 · American journal of law & medicine
[Show abstract][Hide abstract]ABSTRACT: The role of acute care inpatient psychiatry, public and private, has changed dramatically since the 1960s, especially as recent market forces affecting the private sector have had ripple effects on publicly funded mental health care. Key stakeholders' experiences, perceptions, and opinions regarding the role of acute care psychiatry in distressed markets of publicly funded mental health care were examined. A qualitative research study was conducted using semi-structured thematic interviews with 52 senior mental health system administrators, clinical directors and managers, and nonclinical policy specialists. Participants were selected from markets in six regions of the United States that experienced recent significant closures of acute care psychiatric beds. Qualitative data analyses yielded findings that clustered around three sets of higher order themes: structure of care, service delivery barriers, and outcomes. Structure of care suggests that acute care psychiatry is seen as part of a continuum of services; service delivery barriers inhibit effective delivery of services and are perceived to include economic, regulatory, and political factors; outcomes include fragmentation of mental health care services across the continuum, the shift of mental health care to the criminal justice system, and market-specific issues affecting mental health care. Findings delineate key stakeholders' perceptions regarding the role acute care psychiatry plays in the continuum of care for publicly funded mental health and suggest that public mental health care is inefficacious. Results carry implications for policy makers regarding strategies/policies to improve optimal utilization of scarce resources for mental health care, including greater focus on psychotherapy.
No preview · Article · Mar 2012 · Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic