Behavioral health coverage in the individual market increased after ACA parity requirements
Abstract
As of January 1, 2014, the Affordable Care Act designated mental health and substance use services as an essential health benefit in Marketplace plans and extended parity protections to the individual and small-group markets. We analyzed documents for seventy-eight individual and small-group plans in 2014 (after parity provisions took effect) and sixty comparison plans in 2013 (the year before parity provisions took effect) to understand the degree to which coverage for mental health and substance use care improved relative to medical/surgical benefits. The results suggest that plan issuers did what the provisions required them to do. Although in 2013 a lower proportion of plans covered mental health or substance use care, compared to medical/surgical care, in 2014 the proportions were the same. If essential health benefit requirements were to be removed and mental health and substance use coverage becomes similar to that in 2013, as many as 20 percent of the plans in our sample would not cover these conditions. To determine whether increases in behavioral health coverage will result in improved access to behavioral health services requires complementary data on the size of provider networks and use of services.
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?
The ACA appears to have improved coverage for SUD and psychiatry care.
“Evidence suggests a positive impact of the ACA on both SUD and psychiatry coverage (Cowell, Prakash, Jones, Barnosky, & Wedehase, 2018; Novak, Anderson, & Chen, 2018; Shover, Abraham, D’Aunno, Friedmann, & Humphreys, 2019), including an increase in insurance choices (Abraham et al., 2017; Andrews et al., 2018; Feder et al., 2017).”
From Healthcare utilization of individuals with substance use disorders following Affordable Care Act implementation in a California healthcare system (2020) · cites this paper as Cowell, Prakash, Jones, Barnosky, & Wedehase, 2018
Cites
Ettner, S. L., M. Harwood, J., Thalmayer, A., Ong, M. K., Xu, H., Bresolin, M. J., Wells, K. B., Tseng, C.-H., & Azocar, F. (2016) · Journal of Health Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2016.09.009 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Thalmayer, A. G., Friedman, S. A., Azocar, F., Harwood, J. M., & Ettner, S. L. (2017) · Psychiatric Services · doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201600110 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Satre, D. D., Palzes, V. A., Young-Wolff, K. C., Parthasarathy, S., Weisner, C., Guydish, J., & Campbell, C. I. (2020) · Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment · doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2020.108097 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
“Evidence suggests a positive impact of the ACA on both SUD and psychiatry coverage (Cowell et al., 2018; Novak et al., 2018; Shover et al., 2019), including an increase in insurance choices (Abraham et al.”
Background
- Authors
- Cowell, A. J., Prakash, S., Jones, E., Barnosky, A., & Wedehase, B.
- Affiliations
- RTI International (US)
- George Washington University (US)
- ORCID
- Jones, Emily
- Venue
- Health Affairs
- Publisher
- Health Affairs Publishing, LLC
- Published
- 2018-07
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1153-1159
- ISSN
- 0278-2715 (ISSN-L)
- 1544-5208
- OpenAlex
- W2879151440
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Health Affairs (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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 coverage, Affordable Care Act, essential health benefits, individual health insurance market, health plans
- MeSH terms
- Mental Disorders, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Insurance Benefits, Insurance, Psychiatric, Mental Health Services, United States, Insurance Coverage, Substance-Related Disorders, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Preexisting Condition Coverage
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