Effects of mental health parity on high utilizers of services: Pre-post evidence from a large, self-insured employer
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated utilization of mental health and substance use services among enrollees at a large employee health plan following changes to benefit limits after passage in 2008 of federal mental health parity legislation. METHODS: This study used a pre-post design. Benefits and claims data for 43,855 enrollees in the health plan in 2009 and 2010 were analyzed for utilization and costs after removal of a 30-visit cap on the number of covered mental health visits. RESULTS: There was a large increase in the proportion of health plan enrollees with more than 30 outpatient visits after the cap's removal, an increase of 255% among subscribers and 176% among dependents (p<.001). The number of people near the 30-visit limit for substance use disorders was too few to observe an effect. CONCLUSIONS: Federal mental health parity legislation is likely to increase utilization of mental health services by individuals who had previously met their benefit limit.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Grazier et al. found an association between MHPAEA and increases in outpatient mental health service use among high-utilizers at one employer group.
“Examining the effects of MHPAEA among high-utilizers at one employer group, Grazier et al. found an association between MHPAEA and increases in outpatient mental health service use (Grazier, Eisenberg, Jedele, & Smiley, 2015).”
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 Grazier, Eisenberg, Jedele, & Smiley, 2015
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 13 · Cited by 11
- Authors
- Grazier, K. L., Eisenberg, D., Jedele, J. M., & Smiley, M. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Venue
- Psychiatric Services
- Published
- 2016-04-01
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 448-451
- ISSN
- 0022-1597 (ISSN-L)
- 1075-2730
- 1557-9700
- OpenAlex
- W2183773651
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 4.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Psychiatric Services (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
- Keywords
- mental health parity, mental health service utilization, substance use disorder services, employee health insurance, high utilizers, outpatient mental health visits, health care costs
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Female, Health Benefit Plans, Employee, Humans, Male, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Young Adult
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
