Mental health parity: what are the gaps in coverage? (original) (raw)
1998, The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics
Background: Mental health benefits in private health insurance plans in the United States are typically less generous than benefits for physical health care services, driving reform efforts to achieve parity in coverage. While there is growing evidence about the effects such legislation would have on the utilization and cost of mental health services, less is known about the impact parity would have on reducing the risk of large out-of-pocket expenses that families would face in the event of mental illness. Aims of the Study: We seek to understand the impact that mental health parity would have on the out-of-pocket burden that families would face in the event of mental illness. We focus in particular on variations in coverage across the privately insured population. Methods: We compare out-of-pocket spending for hypothetical episodes of mental health treatment, first under current insurance coverage in the United States and then under a reform policy of full mental health parity. We exploit detailed informtion on actual health plan benefits using a nationally-representative sample of the privately insured population under age 65 from the 1987 National Medical Expenditure Survey (NMES) that has been carefully aged and reweighted to represent 1995 population and benefit characteristics. Results: Our results show that existing benefits of the U.S. privately insured population under age 65 leave most people at risk of high out-of-pocket costs in the event of a serious mental illness. Moreover, the generosity of existing mental health benefits varies widely across subgroups, particularly across firm size. We find significantly lower out-of-pocket costs when simulating full parity coverage. However, our results show those with less generous mental health coverage tend to have less generous physical health coverage, as well. Conclusions: Parity would substantially increase generosity of mental health coverage for most of the privately insured population. The wide variation in the generosity of existing mental health benefits suggests that there are likely to be differential impacts from a parity mandate. Those with limited physical health coverage would still be at significant financial risk for catastrophic mental illness.
Related papers
Mental health parity: 1998 national and state perspectives
1998
The federal Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 requires insurers to offer the same benefits for mental disorders and substance abuse as they would for physical disorders, including any annual or lifetime limitations and restrictions placed upon such coverage. To date, twenty states across the nation have enacted parity laws for mental health and/or substance abuse benefits. This report summarizes the essential issues facing the state of Florida in the development of state mental health parity legislation, including an examination of the experiences of other states, a look at potential benefits, and a discussion of the impact of managed care and insurance benefit design on the costs of parity for mental health benefits.
Medicare Mental Health Parity: A High Potential Change that is Long Overdue
Recent changes in legislation regarding mental health parity in Medicare will revolutionize payment for mental health care and delivery systems. This commentary discusses why this policy change was essential to promote adequate care for populations served by Medicare and to address expected changes in beneficiary, provider, and plan behavior as more equitable payments by Medicare are implemented.
A Test of Mental Health Parity
Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 2004
The Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 had as its goal the equity of coverage of mental health care and physical health care. The purpose of this study was to examine the outcomes of hospital concurrent utilization review as a measure of the progress toward the equity goal. The study examined 4 years of denials of certification for reimbursement by payers of inpatient care (1998-2001). Psychiatry was frst compared to clinical services with a like number of annual admissions and then compared to clinical services with a like number of concurrent reviews. For each year, psychiatry had the highest numbers of cases denied and patient days denied. The most frequent reason for a psychiatric denial was that the inpatient benefit level had been exceeded. There was only one instance, in 4 years, when this reason (benefit limit exceeded) was given for a patient with a physical illness. This stud), provides evidence of the current inequity of reimbursement for treatment of mental illness. The equity of coverage of mental health care and physical health care is the goal of both federal and state mental health parity legislation. The federal Mental Health Parity Act (MHPA) of 1996, implemented in 1998, was an attempt to treat the insurance coverage of mental illness care on the same basis as the coverage of care for physical illness. The act prohibited the use of lifetime and annual limits that were different for mental and physical illnesses. 1 The MHPA does not require employers to offer mental health benefits, and small employers (less than 50 employees) are exempt from the law as are other benefit plans if the cost increase as result of parity exceeds 1% of total medical costs. The law does not require equity of deductibles, copayments, days, or visits. When the Act expired in 2001, conferees in the US House subsequently approved a l-year extension of the bill for 2002. In November 2002, H.R. 5716 was submitted to President Bush. This bill again extended the requirement that annual and lifetime dollar limits on mental health care not exceed those limits on care for other illnesses through 2003. 2 A bill to require full parity, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act, was introduced in the 108th Congress. 3 As of 2003, 34 states had passed some form of parity legislation. 4 At the state level, legislation varies greatly, ranging from comprehensive parity to full parity to limited parity. Comprehensive parity legislation, passed in 4 states, applies to all mental health and substance abuse disorders under
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.