Behavioral health insurance parity for federal employees
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Average reductions in out-of-pocket spending attributable to parity were relatively small in magnitude.
“These average reductions in OOP spending attributable to parity were relatively small in magnitude, however.8,9”
From Parity and Out-of-Pocket Spending for Children With High Mental Health or Substance Abuse Expenditures (2013) · cites this paper as [9]
Previous research found that parity did not affect average total MH/SUD expenditures.
“Previous research found that, although parity did not affect average total MH/SUD expenditures, it significantly lowered OOP spending on average for both children8 and adults.9–11”
From Parity and Out-of-Pocket Spending for Children With High Mental Health or Substance Abuse Expenditures (2013) · cites this paper as [9]
Previous research found that parity significantly lowered average out-of-pocket spending on MH/SUD treatment for adults.
“Previous research found that, although parity did not affect average total MH/SUD expenditures, it significantly lowered OOP spending on average for both children8 and adults.9–11”
From Parity and Out-of-Pocket Spending for Children With High Mental Health or Substance Abuse Expenditures (2013) · cites this paper as [9]
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)
- ORCID
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- 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