Theresa Ann Sipe1, Ramona K C Finnie2, John A Knopf2, Shuli Qu2, Jeffrey A Reynolds2, Anilkrishna B Thota2, Robert A Hahn2, Ron Z Goetzel3, Kevin D Hennessy4, Lela R McKnight-Eily5, Daniel P Chapman5, Clinton W Anderson6, Susan Azrin7, Ana F Abraido-Lanza8, Alan J Gelenberg9, Mary E Vernon-Smiley10, Donald E Nease11. 1. Community Guide Branch, Division of Epidemiology, Analysis, and Library Services, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, CDC. Electronic address: tsipe@cdc.gov. 2. Community Guide Branch, Division of Epidemiology, Analysis, and Library Services, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, CDC. 3. Emory University, Truven Health Analytics, and Thomson Reuters, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Rockville. 5. Division of Population Health, CDC. 6. American Psychological Association, Washington, District of Columbia. 7. National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 8. Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York. 9. Department of Psychiatry, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania. 10. Division of Adolescent and School Health, CDC. 11. American Academy of Family Physicians, Denver, Colorado.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Health insurance benefits for mental health services typically have paid less than benefits for physical health services, resulting in potential underutilization or financial burden for people with mental health conditions. Mental health benefits legislation was introduced to improve financial protection (i.e., decrease financial burden) and to increase access to, and use of, mental health services. This systematic review was conducted to determine the effectiveness of mental health benefits legislation, including executive orders, in improving mental health. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Methods developed for the Guide to Community Preventive Services were used to identify, evaluate, and analyze available evidence. The evidence included studies published or reported from 1965 to March 2011 with at least one of the following outcomes: access to care, financial protection, appropriate utilization, quality of care, diagnosis of mental illness, morbidity and mortality, and quality of life. Analyses were conducted in 2012. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Thirty eligible studies were identified in 37 papers. Implementation of mental health benefits legislation was associated with financial protection (decreased out-of-pocket costs) and appropriate utilization of services. Among studies examining the impact of legislation strength, most found larger positive effects for comprehensive parity legislation or policies than for less-comprehensive ones. Few studies assessed other mental health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence indicates that mental health benefits legislation, particularly comprehensive parity legislation, is effective in improving financial protection and increasing appropriate utilization of mental health services for people with mental health conditions. Evidence was limited for other mental health outcomes. Published by Elsevier Inc.
CONTEXT: Health insurance benefits for mental health services typically have paid less than benefits for physical health services, resulting in potential underutilization or financial burden for people with mental health conditions. Mental health benefits legislation was introduced to improve financial protection (i.e., decrease financial burden) and to increase access to, and use of, mental health services. This systematic review was conducted to determine the effectiveness of mental health benefits legislation, including executive orders, in improving mental health. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Methods developed for the Guide to Community Preventive Services were used to identify, evaluate, and analyze available evidence. The evidence included studies published or reported from 1965 to March 2011 with at least one of the following outcomes: access to care, financial protection, appropriate utilization, quality of care, diagnosis of mental illness, morbidity and mortality, and quality of life. Analyses were conducted in 2012. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Thirty eligible studies were identified in 37 papers. Implementation of mental health benefits legislation was associated with financial protection (decreased out-of-pocket costs) and appropriate utilization of services. Among studies examining the impact of legislation strength, most found larger positive effects for comprehensive parity legislation or policies than for less-comprehensive ones. Few studies assessed other mental health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence indicates that mental health benefits legislation, particularly comprehensive parity legislation, is effective in improving financial protection and increasing appropriate utilization of mental health services for people with mental health conditions. Evidence was limited for other mental health outcomes. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Theresa Ann Sipe; Helen B Chin; Randy Elder; Shawna L Mercer; Sajal K Chattopadhyay; Verughese Jacob Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Howard H Goldman; Richard G Frank; M Audrey Burnam; Haiden A Huskamp; M Susan Ridgely; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Alexander S Young; Colleen L Barry; Vanessa Azzone; Alisa B Busch; Susan T Azrin; Garrett Moran; Carolyn Lichtenstein; Margaret Blasinsky Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-03-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ronald C Kessler; Patricia Berglund; Olga Demler; Robert Jin; Kathleen R Merikangas; Ellen E Walters Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2005-06
Authors: K John McConnell; Samuel H N Gast; M Susan Ridgely; Neal Wallace; Natalie Jacuzzi; Traci Rieckmann; Bentson H McFarland; Dennis McCarty Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2011-09-02 Impact factor: 18.112
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: Jonathan Purtle; Félice Lê-Scherban; X I Wang; Paul T Shattuck; Enola K Proctor; Ross C Brownson Journal: Milbank Q Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 4.911
Authors: Rebecca H Bitsko; Angelika H Claussen; Jesse Lichstein; Lindsey I Black; Sherry Everett Jones; Melissa L Danielson; Jennifer M Hoenig; Shane P Davis Jack; Debra J Brody; Shiromani Gyawali; Matthew J Maenner; Margaret Warner; Kristin M Holland; Ruth Perou; Alex E Crosby; Stephen J Blumberg; Shelli Avenevoli; Jennifer W Kaminski; Reem M Ghandour Journal: MMWR Suppl Date: 2022-02-25
Authors: Jonathan Purtle; Félice Lê-Scherban; Paul Shattuck; Enola K Proctor; Ross C Brownson Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2017-06-26 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Jonathan Purtle; Félice Lê-Scherban; Xi Wang; Paul T Shattuck; Enola K Proctor; Ross C Brownson Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2018-09-19 Impact factor: 7.327