Cited by 162Healthcare Policy and ManagementHealth, Medicine and SocietyMental Health Treatment and Access

A political history of federal mental health and addiction insurance parity

Open access
BARRY, COLLEEN L., HUSKAMP, HAIDEN A., GOLDMAN, HOWARD H.·2010·Milbank Quarterly

Abstract

CONTEXT: This article chronicles the political history of efforts by the U.S. Congress to enact a law requiring "parity" for mental health and addiction benefits and medical/surgical benefits in private health insurance. The goal of the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity (MHPAE) Act of 2008 is to eliminate differences in insurance coverage for behavioral health. Mental health and addiction treatment advocates have long viewed parity as a means of increasing fairness in the insurance market, whereas employers and insurers have opposed it because of concerns about its cost. The passage of this law is viewed as a legislative success by both consumer and provider advocates and the employer and insurance groups that fought against it for decades. METHODS: Twenty-nine structured interviews were conducted with key informants in the federal parity debate, including members of Congress and their staff; lobbyists for consumer, provider, employer, and insurance groups; and other key contacts. Historical documentation, academic research on the effects of parity regulations, and public comment letters submitted to the U.S. Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Treasury before the release of federal guidance also were examined. FINDINGS: Three factors were instrumental to the passage of this law: the emergence of new evidence regarding the costs of parity, personal experience with mental illness and addiction, and the political strategies adopted by congressional champions in the Senate and House of Representatives. CONCLUSIONS: Challenges to implementing the federal parity policy warrant further consideration. This law raises new questions about the future direction of federal policymaking on behavioral health.

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 · 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00605.x

Cites

35 of 35 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?

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: 9

  1. Bloom JR Hu T Wallace N Cuffel B Hausman J Scheffler R Mental Health Costs and Outcomes under Alternative Capitation Systems in Colorado: Early Results Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics 1998 1 1 3 13 11964486
  2. Burnam MA Escarce JJ Equity in Managed Care for Mental Disorders Health Affairs 1999 18 5 22 31 10495589
  3. CBO (Congressional Budget Office) 2001 10125949
  4. Congressional Record S1864-5 2007 February 12 Daily edition 153
  5. Horgan CM The Demand for Ambulatory Mental Health Services Health Services Research 1986 21 2 291 319 3721874 PMC1068953
  6. McGuire TG Financing Psychotherapy: Cost, Effects and Public Policy 1981 Cambridge, MA Ballinger Press
  7. Scheffler RM Mental Health Services: New Policies and Estimates Generations: Quarterly Journal of the American Society on Aging 1985 9 4 33 35
  8. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics National Compensation Survey: Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Size Firms, 1981 Bulletin 2140 1982 Washington, DC
  9. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics National Compensation Survey: Employee Benefits in Private Industry in the United States, 2005 Bulletin 2589 2007 Washington, DC

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
BARRY, C. L., HUSKAMP, H. A., & GOLDMAN, H. H.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
BARRY, COLLEEN L.
Venue
Milbank Quarterly
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-09-22
Volume
88
Issue
3
Pages
404-433
ISSN
0887-378X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2160959952
Cited by
162
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 51 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 13
FWCI
16.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Milbank Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH080797, R01MH093414)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA026414)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, Medicine and Society
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
mental health parity, private health insurance, legislative politics, lobbying, mental illness, addiction treatment, health policy implementation
MeSH terms
Humans, Income, Insurance, Health, Interviews as Topic, Mental Health, Politics, Social Justice, Socioeconomic Factors, United States, Substance-Related Disorders, 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