Cited by 53Healthcare Policy and ManagementMental Health Treatment and AccessHealth, Medicine and Society

The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act evaluation study: Impact on specialty behavioral health utilization and expenditures among “carve-out” enrollees

Open access
Ettner, Susan L., M. Harwood, Jessica, Thalmayer, Amber, Ong, Michael K., Xu, Haiyong, Bresolin, Michael J., Wells, Kenneth B., Tseng, Chi-Hong +1 more·2016·Journal of Health Economics

Abstract

Interrupted time series with and without controls was used to evaluate whether the federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) and its Interim Final Rule increased the probability of specialty behavioral health treatment and levels of utilization and expenditures among patients receiving treatment. Linked insurance claims, eligibility, plan and employer data from 2008 to 2013 were used to estimate segmented regression analyses, allowing for level and slope changes during the transition (2010) and post-MHPAEA (2011-2013) periods. The sample included 1,812,541 individuals ages 27-64 (49,968,367 person-months) in 10,010 Optum "carve-out" plans. Two-part regression models with Generalized Estimating Equations were used to estimate expenditures by payer and outpatient, intermediate and inpatient service use. We found little evidence that MHPAEA increased utilization significantly, but somewhat more robust evidence that costs shifted from patients to plans. Thus the primary impact of MHPAEA among carve-out enrollees may have been a reduction in patient financial burden.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2016.09.009

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Among the general population, there is some evidence of modest utilization increases associated with MHPAEA.

    “Among the general population, there is some evidence of modest utilization increases associated with MHPAEA.”

    From The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act evaluation study: Impact on specialty behavioral healthcare utilization and spending among enrollees with substance use disorders (2017) · cites this paper as Ettner et al., 2016

    The Results (page unavailable) report small increases in the probability of structured outpatient and inpatient care after MHPAEA. But the study covers carve-out enrollees, not the general population, and the Discussion describes the utilization findings as mixed, with no broad, consistent increase. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Two additional studies documented modest increases in expenditures and utilization among all patients enrolled in carve-in plans and carve-out plans.

    “Two additional studies documented modest increases in expenditures and utilization among all patients enrolled in carve-in plans, which administer both BH and medical benefits (Harwood et al., 2017) and carve-out plans, those that administer only BH benefits (Ettner et al., 2016).”

    From The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act evaluation study: Impact on specialty behavioral healthcare utilization and spending among enrollees with substance use disorders (2017) · cites this paper as Ettner et al., 2016

    The Results (Overall changes associated with MHPAEA; page unavailable) report a modest increase in plan expenditures and an increase in structured outpatient days among carve-out enrollees. But utilization changes were mixed, patient expenditures fell, and total expenditures had a declining trend. The paper does not support a general increase in both expenditures and utilization among all enrollees. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The level changes in total and plan expenditures are higher in this study (approximately $30 among adults with SUD in both carve-in and carve-out plans) than in analyses of all adults in carve-in and carve-out plans (approximately $1).

    “An informative difference stands out from comparing the results of these complementary analyses: The level changes in total and plan expenditures are higher in this study (approximately $30 among adults with SUD in both carve-in and carve-out plans versus approximately $1 among all adults in carve-in plans and among all adults in carve-out plans).”

    From The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act evaluation study: Impact on specialty behavioral healthcare utilization and spending among enrollees with substance use disorders (2017) · cites this paper as Ettner et al., 2016

    The Results section (Overall changes associated with MHPAEA; page unavailable) reports an immediate $1.78 increase in monthly plan expenditures among all carve-out enrollees, broadly consistent with a change on the order of $1. It reports a negative change in the slope of total expenditures, but does not substantiate the claimed approximately $1 level change in total expenditures. This paper does not study the carve-in or SUD-only comparison groups. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The increases associated with MHPAEA are larger in magnitude than increases detected among a sample of all enrollees (i.e. not only those with SUD diagnoses).

    “These increases, while modest in magnitude, are larger in magnitude than increases detected among a sample of all enrollees (i.e. not only those with SUD diagnoses).”
  • The direction of this study's findings resembles results from similar analyses in all adults in carve-in plans and all adults in carve-out plans.

    “The direction of this study's findings resembles results from similar analyses using the same source data, but conducted in a sample of all adults in carve-in plans (i.e. the general population) (Harwood et al., 2017) and all adults in carve-out plans (Ettner et al., 2016).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. California Health Benefits Review Program Analysis of Assembly Bill 1600: Mental Health Services. A Report to the 2009-2010 California Legislature 2010

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ettner, S. L., M. Harwood, J., Thalmayer, A., Ong, M. K., Xu, H., Bresolin, M. J., Wells, K. B., Tseng, C.-H., & Azocar, F.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • UnitedHealth Group (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Ettner, Susan L.
Venue
Journal of Health Economics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-12
Volume
50
Pages
131-143
ISSN
0167-6296 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2523995877
Cited by
53
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 1
FWCI
18.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Health Economics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (1R01DA032619-01)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, Medicine and Society
Keywords
Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, mental health parity, addiction treatment, health care expenditure, employer-sponsored health insurance, patient financial burden, behavioral health services
MeSH terms
Adult, Health Expenditures, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Psychiatry, United States, Health Status Disparities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review