An audience research study to disseminate evidence about comprehensive state mental health parity legislation to US State policymakers: protocol

BACKGROUND

A large proportion of the US population has limited access to mental health treatments because insurance providers limit the utilization of mental health services in ways that are more restrictive than for physical health services. Comprehensive state mental health parity legislation (C-SMHPL) is an evidence-based policy intervention that enhances mental health insurance coverage and improves access to care. Implementation of C-SMHPL, however, is limited. State policymakers have the exclusive authority to implement C-SMHPL, but sparse guidance exists to inform the design of strategies to disseminate evidence about C-SMHPL, and more broadly, evidence-based treatments and mental illness, to this audience. The aims of this exploratory audience research study are to (1) characterize US State policymakers' knowledge and attitudes about C-SMHPL and identify individual- and state-level attributes associated with support for C-SMHPL; and (2) integrate quantitative and qualitative data to develop a conceptual framework to disseminate evidence about C-SMHPL, evidence-based treatments, and mental illness to US State policymakers.

METHODS

The study uses a multi-level (policymaker, state), mixed method (QUAN→qual) approach and is guided by Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework, adapted to incorporate constructs from Aarons' Model of Evidence-Based Implementation in Public Sectors. A multi-modal survey (telephone, post-mail, e-mail) of 600 US State policymakers (500 legislative, 100 administrative) will be conducted and responses will be linked to state-level variables. The survey will span domains such as support for C-SMHPL, knowledge and attitudes about C-SMHPL and evidence-based treatments, mental illness stigma, and research dissemination preferences. State-level variables will measure factors associated with C-SMHPL implementation, such as economic climate and political environment. Multi-level regression will determine the relative strength of individual- and state-level variables on policymaker support for C-SMHPL. Informed by survey results, semi-structured interviews will be conducted with approximately 50 US State policymakers to elaborate upon quantitative findings. Then, using a systematic process, quantitative and qualitative data will be integrated and a US State policymaker-focused C-SMHPL dissemination framework will be developed.

DISCUSSION

Study results will provide the foundation for hypothesis-driven, experimental studies testing the effects of different dissemination strategies on state policymakers' support for, and implementation of, evidence-based mental health policy interventions.

The United States' Federal Parity Act and treatment of substance use disorders: Administrators' familiarity and perceptions of impact

BACKGROUND

The 2008 Wellstone and Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) aims to secure parity in private insurance coverage between behavioral and other medical disorders in the United States (U.S.). This legislation represents an important change in the operating field of substance use disorder treatment, but to date, its impact on treatment centers has not been widely examined. The current study measured the extent of center leaders' familiarity with the MHPAEA and their perceptions of its overall impact on their centers.

METHODS

Using a nationally representative sample of treatment centers in the U.S., we examined the extent of MHPAEA familiarity and its perceived impact as reported by treatment center leaders. We further employed logistic and ordered logistic regressions to determine personal and organizational characteristics associated with their reported familiarity and experienced impacts, including changes in the number of privately-insured clients seeking treatment and in the treatment coverage of those clients.

RESULTS

We found that dissemination of parity information was low. Only 36% of administrators reported high levels of familiarity and 16% used professional sources of information. The majority of administrators (71%) reported no impact of the legislation on their organization, but those that reported any impact were more likely to state positive impact. Greater parity knowledge and perceived positive impacts were associated with administrator and organizational characteristics indicative of greater access to industry-specific knowledge, a medical model orientation, and reliance on private insurance revenue.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that dissemination of parity information is lacking and that the majority of leaders have yet to experience an impact of the MHPAEA. Leaders of centers with more sophisticated structures are most likely to be familiar with the legislation and perceive a positive impact. Research concerning the effective management of treatment centers, including environmental scanning techniques, continues to be needed.