Toward full mental health parity and beyond

Institutions, Politics, and Mental Health Parity

Mental health parity laws require insurers to extend comparable benefits for mental and physical health care. Proponents argue that by placing mental health services alongside physical health services, such laws can help ensure needed treatment and destigmatize mental illness. Opponents counter that such mandates are costly or unnecessary. The authors offer a sociological account of the diffusion and spatial distribution of state mental health parity laws. An event history analysis identifies four factors as especially important: diffusion of law, political ideology, the stability of mental health advocacy organizations and the relative health of state economies. Mental health parity is least likely to be established during times of high state unemployment and under the leadership of conservative state legislatures.

A political history of federal mental health and addiction insurance parity

CONTEXT

This article chronicles the political history of efforts by the U.S. Congress to enact a law requiring "parity" for mental health and addiction benefits and medical/surgical benefits in private health insurance. The goal of the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity (MHPAE) Act of 2008 is to eliminate differences in insurance coverage for behavioral health. Mental health and addiction treatment advocates have long viewed parity as a means of increasing fairness in the insurance market, whereas employers and insurers have opposed it because of concerns about its cost. The passage of this law is viewed as a legislative success by both consumer and provider advocates and the employer and insurance groups that fought against it for decades.

METHODS

Twenty-nine structured interviews were conducted with key informants in the federal parity debate, including members of Congress and their staff; lobbyists for consumer, provider, employer, and insurance groups; and other key contacts. Historical documentation, academic research on the effects of parity regulations, and public comment letters submitted to the U.S. Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Treasury before the release of federal guidance also were examined.

FINDINGS

Three factors were instrumental to the passage of this law: the emergence of new evidence regarding the costs of parity, personal experience with mental illness and addiction, and the political strategies adopted by congressional champions in the Senate and House of Representatives.

CONCLUSIONS

Challenges to implementing the federal parity policy warrant further consideration. This law raises new questions about the future direction of federal policymaking on behavioral health.

Parity for whom? Exemptions and the extent of state mental health parity legislation

Between 1997 and 2003, the share of workers subject to mental health parity laws greatly increased. But because of exemptions for self-insured firms and small firms, coverage is much lower than a simple tally of state mandates would suggest. Limits on the types of conditions covered further weaken these laws. This paper summarizes the extent and scope of state parity legislation in terms of the number of insured private-sector employees covered. It explicitly accounts for the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) exemption for self-insured plans, exemptions for small employers, and the range of conditions covered by the law.

The politics of public health policy

Politics, for better or worse, plays a critical role in health affairs. The purpose of this article is to articulate a role for political analysis of public health issues, ranging from injury and disease prevention to health care reform. It begins by examining how health problems make it onto the policy agenda. Perceptions regarding the severity of the problem, responsibility for the problem, and affected populations all influence governmental responses. Next, it considers how bounded rationality, fragmented political institutions, resistance from concentrated interests, and fiscal constraints usually lead political leaders to adopt incremental policy changes rather than comprehensive reforms even when faced with serious public health problems. It then identifies conditions under which larger-scale transformation of health policy can occur, focusing on critical junctures in policy development and the role of policy entrepreneurs in seizing opportunities for innovation. Finally, it reviews the challenges confronting officials and agencies who are responsible for implementing and administering health policies. Public health professionals who understand the political dimensions of health policy can conduct more realistic research and evaluation, better anticipate opportunities as well as constraints on governmental action, and design more effective policies and programs.

The impact of parity on major depression treatment quality in the Federal Employees' Health Benefits Program after parity implementation

BACKGROUND

Since the 1990s, parity laws have been implemented to reduce inequities in mental health coverage compared with that for general medical conditions. It is unclear if parity under managed care is associated with improvements in mental health treatment quality. Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a prevalent but often undetected and undertreated and thus could potentially benefit from parity implementation.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to examine the association between parity implementation and changes in MDD treatment quality in the Federal Employees' Health Benefits (FEHB) Program.

METHODS

We conducted retrospective analyses of insurance claims data. Logistic regression models estimated quality changes for MDD-diagnosed enrollees from pre- to postparity.

SUBJECTS

Subjects included MDD-diagnosed FEHB insured enrollees, aged 18-64, across multiple states and 6 FEHB plans before (1999-2000) and after (2001-2002) parity implementation.

MEASURES

Measures included receipt of any antidepressant or psychotherapy within a given calendar year of diagnosis; receipt of appropriate psychotherapy frequency/intensity and duration; and pharmacotherapy duration during acute-phase treatment episodes.

RESULTS

Postparity, several plans improved significantly in the likelihood of receiving antidepressant medication. In the acute-phase episodes, the greatest improvement was seen in the likelihood of follow up >or=4 months. Few or no other changes were observed in the acute-phase treatment intensity or duration quality measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Parity under managed care was associated with modest improvements. The observed improvements were consistent with secular trends in MDD treatment. Whereas mental health parity is an important policy goal, these results highlight its limitations: improving the financing of care may not be sufficient to improve quality.

A test of mental health parity: comparisons of outcomes of hospital concurrent utilization review

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 first 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 study provides evidence of the current inequity of reimbursement for treatment of mental illness.

The current and future state of mental health insurance parity legislation

Health insurance plans typically provide less coverage for mental health and chemical dependency treatment than for general medical services. In 1996 the federal government responded to these inequities by passing the Mental Health Parity Act, requiring equal annual lifetime dollar limits for mental health benefits. However, provisions within the law are easily circumvented, rendering it relatively ineffective as implemented. The Senator Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2003 measures (S. 486 & H.R. 953) currently in Congress would expand the language and effectiveness of the Mental Health Parity Act. This paper reviews the limitations of both the 1996 federal law and existing state laws, and explains why federal action to expand the Mental Health Parity Act is so critical to people with mental illnesses.

Using administrative data to study persons with disabilities

Administrative data result from administering health plans--tracking service utilization, paying claims, monitoring costs and quality--and have been used extensively for health services research. This article examines the strengths and limitations of administrative data for health services research studies of people with disabilities. Administrative data offer important advantages: encompassing large populations over time, ready availability, low cost, and computer readability. Questions arise about how to identify people with disabilities, capture disability-related services, and determine meaningful health care outcomes. Potentially useful administrative data elements include eligibility for Medicare or Medicaid through Social Security disability determinations, diagnosis and procedure codes, pharmacy claims, and durable medical equipment claims. Linking administrative data to survey or other data sources enhances the utility of administrative data for disability studies.

Removing barriers to care among persons with psychiatric symptoms

Many persons with serious psychiatric conditions who could benefit from available treatments do not receive care, and the barriers are generally understood to be limited knowledge, inadequacies in insurance coverage, and stigma. Sophisticated approaches are needed to realistically eliminate these and other barriers. Public policy should focus on criteria for need for care and encourage interventions that facilitate treatment when it can be helpful. Appropriate insurance coverage is indispensable, and achieving mental health parity will require careful management of care. Policymakers must help to create a trustworthy management structure that is inclusive, that develops and disseminates models of best practice, that encourages evidence-based decision processes, and that ensures continuing dialogue and procedural fairness in managed care decision making.