Parity And The Use Of Out-Of-Network Mental Health Benefits In The FEHB Program

Private Practice, Private Insurance, and Private Pay Mental Health Services: An Understudied Area in Implementation Science

The private practice setting is understudied. Private practice includes settings in which mental health providers are unaffiliated with healthcare and hospital systems. Private practices may accept insurance (private and sometimes public) or no insurance (private pay). Increasing attention to this setting is critical to facilitating equitable access to mental health services, especially given enduring mental health workforce shortages and service waitlists. Further, there have been recent federal government calls to increase mental health and physical healthcare parity and to reduce out-of-pocket patient costs. Implementation science theories, models, frameworks, and methods can help illuminate determinants of private practice service availability and quality (e.g., evidence-based intervention delivery with fidelity), guide evaluation of implementation outcomes such as cost and acceptability of interventions to patients, and identify strategies to mitigate barriers to high-quality, affordable private practice services. This article suggests research questions to begin filling the private practice research gap using an implementation determinants framework - the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) 2.0. Research questions are proposed across CFIR domains: outer context (e.g., policies impacting whether private practices accept insurance); individuals involved (e.g., provider professional experiences; direct-to-consumer marketing impacts on evidence-based intervention demand); innovation characteristics (e.g., appropriateness for private practice); inner context (e.g., organizational characteristics); and implementation processes (e.g., innovation sustainability). The illustrative research questions aim to begin a conversation amongst researchers and funders. Bringing an implementation science lens to the private practice context has the potential to improve the quality and affordability of mental health care for many.

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.

Federal parity law associated with increased probability of using out-of-network substance use disorder treatment services

The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 requires commercial insurers providing group coverage for substance use disorder services to offer benefits for those services at a level equal to those for medical or surgical benefits. Unlike previous parity policies instituted for federal employees and in individual states, the law extends parity to out-of-network services. We conducted an interrupted time-series analysis using insurance claims from large self-insured employers to evaluate whether federal parity was associated with changes in out-of-network treatment for 525,620 users of substance use disorder services. Federal parity was associated with an increased probability of using out-of-network services, an increased average number of out-of-network outpatient visits, and increased average total spending on out-of-network services among users of those services. Our findings were broadly consistent with the contention of federal parity proponents that extending parity to out-of-network services would broaden access to substance use disorder care obtained outside of plan networks.

APIRE Practice Research Network: accomplishments, challenges, and lessons learned

The Practice Research Network (PRN) was established in 1993 to bridge the gap between the science base and the clinical practice of psychiatry by expanding the generalizability of findings and involving clinicians in the development and conduct of research. It began as a nationwide network of psychiatrists and has evolved to conduct large-scale, clinical and policy research studies using randomly selected samples of psychiatrists from the AMA Physician Masterfile. This paper provides an overview of major PRN initiatives and the impact of these studies. It describes the benefits to clinicians of participating in PRN research, as well as strategies developed to address key challenges.

Out-of-network provider use more likely in mental health than general health care among privately insured

OBJECTIVE

Previous research has shown relatively high use of out-of-network mental health providers, although direct comparisons with rates among general health providers are not available. We aimed to (1) estimate the proportion of privately insured adults using an out-of-network mental health provider in the past 12 months; (2) compare rates of out-of-network mental health provider use with out-of-network general medical use; (3) determine reasons for out-of-network mental health care use.

METHODS

A nationally representative sample of privately insured US adults was surveyed using the internet in February 2011. Screener questions identified if the participant had used either a general medical physician or a mental health professional within the past 12 months. Respondents using either type of out-of-network provider completed a 10-minute survey on details of their out-of-network care experiences.

RESULTS

Eighteen percent of individuals who used a mental health provider reported at least 1 contact with an out-of-network mental health provider, compared to 6.8% who used a general health provider (P<0.01). The most common reasons for choosing an out-of-network mental health provider were the physician was recommended (26.1%), continuity with a previously known provider (23.7%), and the perceived skill of the provider (19.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Out-of-network provider use is more likely in mental health care than general health care. Most respondents chose an out-of-network mental health provider based on perceived provider quality or continuing care with a previously known provider rather than issues related to the availability of an in-network provider, convenient location, or appointment wait time.

The Out-of-Network Benefit: Problems and Policy Solutions

Health insurance plans that include coverage for out-of-network providers are common and have the potential to reduce health care costs and even improve quality. Yet, consumers may be exposed to significant unexpected and unreasonable out-of-pocket costs due to lack of accurate information on network participation, nontransparent out-of-pocket costs, inadequate provider networks, involuntary use of out-of-network emergency care, and use of out-of-network providers at in-network hospitals. Although the Affordable Care Act and some states provide some consumer protections, these may not be adequate.

Insurance parity and the use of outpatient mental health care following a psychiatric hospitalization

CONTEXT

Mental health services are typically subject to higher cost sharing than other health services. In 2008, the US Congress enacted legislation requiring parity in insurance coverage for mental health services in group health plans and Medicare Part B.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the relationship between mental health insurance parity and the use of timely follow-up care after a psychiatric hospitalization.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND POPULATION

We reviewed cost-sharing requirements for outpatient mental health and general medical services for 302 Medicare health plans from 2001 to 2006. Among 43 892 enrollees in 173 health plans who were hospitalized for a mental illness, we determined the relation between parity in cost sharing and receipt of timely outpatient mental health care after discharge using cross-sectional analyses of all Medicare plans and longitudinal analyses of 10 plans that discontinued parity compared with 10 matched control plans that maintained parity.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outpatient mental health visits within 7 and 30 days following a discharge for a psychiatric hospitalization.

RESULTS

More than three-quarters of Medicare plans, representing 79% of Medicare enrollees, required greater cost sharing for mental health care compared with primary or specialty care. The adjusted rate of follow-up within 30 days after a psychiatric hospitalization was 10.9 percentage points greater (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.6-17.3; P < .001) in plans with equivalent cost sharing for mental health and primary care compared with plans with mental health cost sharing greater than primary and specialty care cost sharing. The association of parity with follow-up care was increased for enrollees from areas of low income and less education. Rates of follow-up visits within 30 days decreased by 7.7 percentage points (95% CI, -12.9 to -2.4; P = .004) in plans that discontinued parity and increased by 7.5 percentage points (95% CI, 2.0-12.9; P = .008) among control plans that maintained parity (adjusted difference in difference, 14.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.5-23.9; P = .007).

CONCLUSION

Medicare enrollees in health plans with insurance parity for mental health and primary care have markedly higher use of clinically appropriate mental health services following a psychiatric hospitalization.