BACKGROUND: To improve insurance coverage of mental health and substance-abuse services, the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program offered mental health and substance-abuse benefits on a par with general medical benefits beginning in January 2001. The plans were encouraged to manage care. METHODS: We compared seven FEHB plans from 1999 through 2002 with a matched set of health plans that did not have benefits on a par with mental health and substance-abuse benefits (parity of mental health and substance-abuse benefits). Using a difference-in-differences analysis, we compared the claims patterns of matched pairs of FEHB and control plans by examining the rate of use, total spending, and out-of-pocket spending among users of mental health and substance-abuse services. RESULTS: The difference-in-differences analysis indicated that the observed increase in the rate of use of mental health and substance-abuse services after the implementation of the parity policy was due almost entirely to a general trend in increased use that was observed in comparison health plans as well as FEHB plans. The implementation of parity was associated with a statistically significant increase in use in one plan (+0.78 percent, P<0.05) a significant decrease in use in one plan (-0.96 percent, P<0.05), and no significant difference in use in the other five plans (range, -0.38 percent to +0.23 percent; P>0.05 for each comparison). For beneficiaries who used mental health and substance-abuse services, spending attributable to the implementation of parity decreased significantly for three plans (range, -201.99 dollars to -68.97 dollars; P<0.05 for each comparison) and did not change significantly for four plans (range, -42.13 dollars to +27.11 dollars; P>0.05 for each comparison). The implementation of parity was associated with significant reductions in out-of-pocket spending in five of seven plans. CONCLUSIONS: When coupled with management of care, implementation of parity in insurance benefits for behavioral health care can improve insurance protection without increasing total costs.
BACKGROUND: To improve insurance coverage of mental health and substance-abuse services, the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program offered mental health and substance-abuse benefits on a par with general medical benefits beginning in January 2001. The plans were encouraged to manage care. METHODS: We compared seven FEHB plans from 1999 through 2002 with a matched set of health plans that did not have benefits on a par with mental health and substance-abuse benefits (parity of mental health and substance-abuse benefits). Using a difference-in-differences analysis, we compared the claims patterns of matched pairs of FEHB and control plans by examining the rate of use, total spending, and out-of-pocket spending among users of mental health and substance-abuse services. RESULTS: The difference-in-differences analysis indicated that the observed increase in the rate of use of mental health and substance-abuse services after the implementation of the parity policy was due almost entirely to a general trend in increased use that was observed in comparison health plans as well as FEHB plans. The implementation of parity was associated with a statistically significant increase in use in one plan (+0.78 percent, P<0.05) a significant decrease in use in one plan (-0.96 percent, P<0.05), and no significant difference in use in the other five plans (range, -0.38 percent to +0.23 percent; P>0.05 for each comparison). For beneficiaries who used mental health and substance-abuse services, spending attributable to the implementation of parity decreased significantly for three plans (range, -201.99 dollars to -68.97 dollars; P<0.05 for each comparison) and did not change significantly for four plans (range, -42.13 dollars to +27.11 dollars; P>0.05 for each comparison). The implementation of parity was associated with significant reductions in out-of-pocket spending in five of seven plans. CONCLUSIONS: When coupled with management of care, implementation of parity in insurance benefits for behavioral health care can improve insurance protection without increasing total costs.
Authors: Howard H Goldman; Colleen L Barry; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Vanessa Azzone; Alisa B Busch; Haiden A Huskamp Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Deborah W Garnick; Constance M Horgan; Elizabeth L Merrick; Dominic Hodgkin; Sharon Reif; Amity E Quinn; Maureen Stewart; Timothy B Creedon Journal: J Behav Health Serv Res Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 1.505
Authors: Rebecca L Haffajee; Michelle M Mello; Fang Zhang; Alisa B Busch; Alan M Zaslavsky; J Frank Wharam Journal: Med Care Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Susan T Azrin; Haiden A Huskamp; Vanessa Azzone; Howard H Goldman; Richard G Frank; M Audrey Burnam; Sharon-Lise T Normand; M Susan Ridgely; Alexander S Young; Colleen L Barry; Alisa B Busch; Garrett Moran Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Julie M Donohue; Colleen L Barry; Elizabeth A Stuart; Shelly F Greenfield; Zirui Song; Michael E Chernew; Haiden A Huskamp Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2018 Jan/Feb Impact factor: 3.702
Authors: Alene Kennedy-Hendricks; Andrew J Epstein; Elizabeth A Stuart; Rebecca L Haffajee; Emma E McGinty; Alisa B Busch; Haiden A Huskamp; Colleen L Barry Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 7.124