Titre
The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act Evaluation Study : Impact on Specialty Behavioral Health Care Utilization and Spending Among Carve-In Enrollees
Type
recension de livre
Institution
Externe
Périodique
Auteur(s)
Harwood, Jessica M.
Auteure/Auteur
Azocar, Francisca
Auteure/Auteur
Thalmayer, Amber
Auteure/Auteur
Xu, Haiyong
Auteure/Auteur
Ong, Michael K.
Auteure/Auteur
Tseng, Chi-Hong
Auteure/Auteur
Wells, Kenneth B.
Auteure/Auteur
Friedman, Sarah
Auteure/Auteur
Ettner, Susan L.
Auteure/Auteur
Liens vers les personnes
ISSN
0025-7079
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
2017-02
Volume
55
Numéro
2
Première page
164
Dernière page/numéro d’article
172
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Langue
anglais
Résumé
Objective: The federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) sought to eliminate historical disparities between insurance coverage for behavioral health (BH) treatment and coverage for medical treatment. Our objective was to evaluate MHPAEA’s impact on BH expenditures and utilization among “carve-in” enrollees.
Methods: We received specialty BH insurance claims and eligibility data from Optum, sampling 5,987,776 adults enrolled in self- insured plans from large employers. An interrupted time series study design with segmented regression analysis estimated monthly time trends of per-member spending and use before (2008–2009), during (2010), and after (2011–2013) MHPAEA compliance (N = 179,506,951 member-month observations). Outcomes included: total, plan, patient out-of-pocket spending; outpatient utilization (assessment/diagnostic evaluation visits, medication management, individual and family psychotherapy); intermediate care utilization (structured outpatient, day treatment, residential); and inpatient utilization.
Results: MHPAEA was associated with increases in monthly per- member total spending, plan spending, assessment/diagnostic evaluation visits [respective immediate increases of: $1.05 (P=0.02); $0.88 (P=0.04); 0.00045 visits (P=0.00)], and individual psychotherapy visits [immediate increase of 0.00578 visits (P = 0.00) and additional increases of 0.00017 visits/mo (P = 0.03)].
Conclusions: MHPAEA was associated with modest increases in total and plan spending and outpatient utilization; for example, in July 2012 predicted per-enrollee plan spending was $4.92 without MHPAEA and $6.14 with MHPAEA. Efforts should focus on understanding how other barriers to BH care unaddressed by MHPAEA may affect access/utilization. Future research should evaluate effects produced by the Affordable Care Act’s inclusion of BH care as an essential health benefit and expansion of MHPAEA protections to the individual and small group markets.
Methods: We received specialty BH insurance claims and eligibility data from Optum, sampling 5,987,776 adults enrolled in self- insured plans from large employers. An interrupted time series study design with segmented regression analysis estimated monthly time trends of per-member spending and use before (2008–2009), during (2010), and after (2011–2013) MHPAEA compliance (N = 179,506,951 member-month observations). Outcomes included: total, plan, patient out-of-pocket spending; outpatient utilization (assessment/diagnostic evaluation visits, medication management, individual and family psychotherapy); intermediate care utilization (structured outpatient, day treatment, residential); and inpatient utilization.
Results: MHPAEA was associated with increases in monthly per- member total spending, plan spending, assessment/diagnostic evaluation visits [respective immediate increases of: $1.05 (P=0.02); $0.88 (P=0.04); 0.00045 visits (P=0.00)], and individual psychotherapy visits [immediate increase of 0.00578 visits (P = 0.00) and additional increases of 0.00017 visits/mo (P = 0.03)].
Conclusions: MHPAEA was associated with modest increases in total and plan spending and outpatient utilization; for example, in July 2012 predicted per-enrollee plan spending was $4.92 without MHPAEA and $6.14 with MHPAEA. Efforts should focus on understanding how other barriers to BH care unaddressed by MHPAEA may affect access/utilization. Future research should evaluate effects produced by the Affordable Care Act’s inclusion of BH care as an essential health benefit and expansion of MHPAEA protections to the individual and small group markets.
Sujets
PID Serval
serval:BIB_31CA7F4F6F11
PMID
Date de création
2019-09-22T09:09:13.114Z
Date de création dans IRIS
2025-05-20T20:39:07Z