Cited by 219Healthcare Policy and ManagementMental Health Treatment and AccessHealth, Medicine and Society

Behavioral health insurance parity for federal employees

Goldman, Howard H., Frank, Richard G., Burnam, M. Audrey, Huskamp, Haiden A., Ridgely, M. Susan, Normand, Sharon-Lise T., Young, Alexander S., Barry, Colleen L. +6 more·2006·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To improve insurance coverage of mental health and substance-abuse services, the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program offered mental health and substance-abuse benefits on a par with general medical benefits beginning in January 2001. The plans were encouraged to manage care. METHODS: We compared seven FEHB plans from 1999 through 2002 with a matched set of health plans that did not have benefits on a par with mental health and substance-abuse benefits (parity of mental health and substance-abuse benefits). Using a difference-in-differences analysis, we compared the claims patterns of matched pairs of FEHB and control plans by examining the rate of use, total spending, and out-of-pocket spending among users of mental health and substance-abuse services. RESULTS: The difference-in-differences analysis indicated that the observed increase in the rate of use of mental health and substance-abuse services after the implementation of the parity policy was due almost entirely to a general trend in increased use that was observed in comparison health plans as well as FEHB plans. The implementation of parity was associated with a statistically significant increase in use in one plan (+0.78 percent, P<0.05) a significant decrease in use in one plan (-0.96 percent, P<0.05), and no significant difference in use in the other five plans (range, -0.38 percent to +0.23 percent; P>0.05 for each comparison). For beneficiaries who used mental health and substance-abuse services, spending attributable to the implementation of parity decreased significantly for three plans (range, -201.99 dollars to -68.97 dollars; P<0.05 for each comparison) and did not change significantly for four plans (range, -42.13 dollars to +27.11 dollars; P>0.05 for each comparison). The implementation of parity was associated with significant reductions in out-of-pocket spending in five of seven plans. CONCLUSIONS: When coupled with management of care, implementation of parity in insurance benefits for behavioral health care can improve insurance protection without increasing total costs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmsa053737

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 16 · Cited by 219

Authors
Goldman, H. H., Frank, R. G., Burnam, M. A., Huskamp, H. A., Ridgely, M. S., Normand, S.-L. T., Young, A. S., Barry, C. L., Azzone, V., Busch, A. B., Azrin, S. T., Moran, G., Lichtenstein, C., & Blasinsky, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • RAND Corporation (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • Westat (United States) (US)
  • Northrop Grumman (United States) (US)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2006-03-30
Volume
354
Issue
13
Pages
1378-1386
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2084492768
Cited by
219
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 19
FWCI
48.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5p30mh068639-05)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (1 K01 MH 66109, K01MH066109, P30-MH068639, T32 MH19773 08)
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, Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, behavioral health services, managed care, health care utilization, health care spending, out-of-pocket costs
MeSH terms
Health Benefit Plans, Employee, Humans, Insurance Benefits, Mental Health Services, United States, Cost Sharing, Health Care Costs, Substance-Related Disorders, Federal Government

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