The effect of comprehensive behavioral health parity on choice of provider

Reciprocal associations between depression, anxiety and work-related injury

OBJECTIVE

To examine the reciprocal longitudinal associations between depression or anxiety with work-related injury (WRI) at a large employer in the southwestern United States.

METHOD

Three administrative datasets (2011-2013) were merged: employee eligibility, medical and prescription claims, and workers' compensation claims. The sample contained 69 066 active employees. Depression and anxiety were defined as episodes of medical visits care (ie, claims) with corresponding ICD-9-CM codes. For an individual's consecutive claims, a new case of depression or anxiety was defined if more than 8 weeks have passed since the prior episode. The presence of a workers' compensation injury claim was used to identify WRI. Three-wave (health plan years 2011 or T1, 2012 or T2, and 2013 or T3) autoregressive cross-lagged models were used to estimate whether depression or anxiety predicted WRI, also if WRI predicted depression or anxiety in the following year(s).

RESULTS

Depression predicted injury from T1 to T2 (β=0.127, p<0.001) and from T2 to T3 (β=0.092, p=0.001). Injury predicted depression from T1 to T3 (β=0.418, p<0.001). Effects of anxiety on WRI were small and inconsistent, from T1 to T2 (β=0.013, p=0.622) and from T2 to T3 (β=-0.043, p=0.031). T1 injury had a protective effect on T3 anxiety (β=-0.273, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence of reciprocal effects for depression with WRI after adjustment for prior injuries and depression. The evidence for the relationship between anxiety and WRI is less clear. WRI prevention and management programmes should incorporate depression prevention and management.

Assessment of Behavioral Health Services Use Among Low-Income Medicare Beneficiaries After Reductions in Coinsurance Fees

IMPORTANCE

Medicare has historically imposed higher beneficiary coinsurance for behavioral health services than for medical and surgical care but gradually introduced parity between 2009 and 2014. Although Medicare insures many people with serious mental illness (SMI), there is limited information on the impact of coinsurance parity in this population.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between coinsurance parity and outpatient behavioral health care use among low-income beneficiaries with SMI.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study used Medicare claims data for a 50% national sample of lower-income Medicare beneficiaries from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2016. The study sample included patients with SMI (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depressive disorder). Data analysis was performed from August 1, 2018, to July 15, 2020.

EXPOSURES

Reduction in behavioral health care coinsurance from 50% to 20% between January 1, 2009, and January 1, 2014.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Total annual spending for outpatient behavioral health care visits and the percentage of beneficiaries with an annual outpatient behavioral health care visit overall, with a prescriber, and with a psychiatrist. A difference-in-difference approach was used to compare outcomes before and after the reduction in coinsurance for beneficiaries with and without cost-sharing decreases. Linear regression models with beneficiary fixed effects that adjusted for time-changing beneficiary- and area-level covariates were used to examine changes in outcomes.

RESULTS

The study included 793 275 beneficiaries with SMI in 2008; 518 893 (65.4%) were younger than 65 years (mean [SD] age, 57.6 [16.1] years), 511 265 (64.4%) were female, and 552 056 (69.6%) were White. In 2008, the adjusted percentage of beneficiaries with an outpatient behavioral health care visit was 40.7% (95% CI, 40.4%-41.0%) among those eligible for the cost-sharing reduction and 44.9% (95% CI, 44.9%-45.0%) among those with free care. The mean adjusted out-of-pocket costs for outpatient behavioral health care visits decreased from $132 (95% CI, $129-$136) in 2008 to $64 (95% CI, $61-$66) in 2016 among those with reductions in cost-sharing. The adjusted percentage of beneficiaries with behavioral health care visits increased to 42.2% (95% CI, 41.9%-42.5%) in the group with a reduction in coinsurance and to 47.2% (95% CI, 47.0%-47.3%) in the group with free care. The cost-sharing reduction was not positively associated with visits (eg, relative change of -0.76 percentage points [95% CI, -1.12 to -0.40 percentage points] in the percentage of beneficiaries with outpatient behavioral health care visits in 2016 vs 2008).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This cohort study found that beneficiary costs for outpatient behavioral health care decreased between 2009 and 2014. There was no association between cost-sharing reductions and changes in behavioral health care visits. Low levels of use in this high-need population suggest the need for other policy efforts to address additional barriers to behavioral health care.

Achieving Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Treatment Parity: A Quarter Century of Policy Making and Research

The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) of 2008 changed the landscape of mental health and substance use disorder coverage in the United States. The MHPAEA's comprehensiveness compared with past parity laws, including its extension of parity to plan management strategies, the so-called nonquantitative treatment limitations (NQTL), led to significant improvements in mental health care coverage. In this article, we review the history of this landmark legislation and its recent expansions to new populations, describe past research on the effects of this and other mental health/substance use disorder parity laws, and describe some directions for future research, including NQTL compliance issues, effects of parity on individuals with severe mental illness, and measurement of benefits other than mental health care use.

Was federal parity associated with changes in Out-of-network mental health care use and spending?

Background

The goal of the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act is to eliminate differences in insurance coverage between behavioral health and general medical care. The law requires out-of-network mental health benefits be equivalent to out-of-network medical/surgical benefits. Insurers were concerned this provision would lead to unsustainable increases in out-of-network related expenditures. We examined whether federal parity implementation was associated with significant increases in out-of-network mental health care use and spending.

Methods

We conducted an interrupted time series analysis using health insurance claims from self-insured employers (2007–2012). We examined changes in the probability of using out-of-network mental health services and, conditional on out-of-network mental health service use, changes in the number of outpatient out-of-network mental health visits and total out-of-network mental health spending associated with the implementation of federal parity in 2010.

Results

From 2007 to 2012, the proportion of individuals receiving any out-of-network mental health services each month declined dramatically from 18 to 12%, with a one-time drop of 3 percentage points at parity implementation (p < .01). Among out-of-network mental health service users, there was an increase in the number of visits per month (.12 visits; p < .01) and total spending per month ($49; p < .01) at parity implementation. Although there was a one-time increase in spending at parity implementation, this increase was accompanied by an attenuation of a trend toward increased spending growth, such that spending was back to original predictions by the end of our study period.

Conclusions

Despite concerns expressed by the health insurance industry when federal parity was enacted, out-of-network mental health spending did not substantially increase after parity implementation. In addition, use of out-of-network mental health services appears to have contracted rather than expanded, suggesting insurers may have implemented other policies to curb out-of-network use, such as increasing access to in-network providers.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2261-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

An ACA provision increased treatment for young adults with possible mental illnesses relative to comparison group

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) required that insurers allow people ages 19-25 to remain as dependents on their parents' health insurance beginning in 2010. Using data from the 2008-12 National Survey of Drug Use and Health, we examined the impact of the ACA dependent coverage provision on people ages 18-25 with possible mental health or substance use disorders. We found that after implementation of the ACA provision, among people ages 18-25 with possible mental health disorders, mental health treatment increased by 5.3 percentage points relative to a comparison group of similar people ages 26-35. Smaller, but consistent, effects were found among all young adults, not only those with possible illnesses. For people using mental health treatment, uninsured visits declined by 12.4 percentage points, and visits paid by private insurance increased by 12.9 percentage points. We observed no changes in mental health treatment setting. Outcomes related to substance abuse treatment did not change during the study period. The dependent coverage provision can contribute to a broader strategy for improving behavioral health treatment for young adults.

How the affordable care act and mental health parity and addiction equity act greatly expand coverage of behavioral health care

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) will expand coverage of mental health and substance use disorder benefits and federal parity protections to over 60 million Americans. The key to this expansion is the essential health benefit provision in the ACA that requires coverage of mental health and substance use disorder services at parity with general medical benefits. Other ACA provisions that should improve access to treatment include requirements on network adequacy, dependent coverage up to age 26, preventive services, and prohibitions on annual and lifetime limits and preexisting exclusions. The ACA offers states flexibility in expanding Medicaid (primarily to childless adults, not generally eligible previously) to cover supportive services needed by those with significant behavioral health conditions in addition to basic benefits at parity. Through these various new requirements, the ACA in conjunction with Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) will expand coverage of behavioral health care by historic proportions.

Mental health collaborative care and its role in primary care settings

Collaborative care models (CCMs) provide a pragmatic strategy to deliver integrated mental health and medical care for persons with mental health conditions served in primary care settings. CCMs are team-based intervention to enact system-level redesign by improving patient care through organizational leadership support, provider decision support, and clinical information systems, as well as engaging patients in their care through self-management support and linkages to community resources. The model is also a cost-efficient strategy for primary care practices to improve outcomes for a range of mental health conditions across populations and settings. CCMs can help achieve integrated care aims underhealth care reform yet organizational and financial issues may affect adoption into routine primary care. Notably, successful implementation of CCMs in routine care will require alignment of financial incentives to support systems redesign investments, reimbursements for mental health providers, and adaptation across different practice settings and infrastructure to offer all CCM components.