The costs of mental health parity: still an impediment?
Abstract
Parity in mental health benefits rectifies unfairness in health insurance coverage and reduces financial risk for those with mental illness. However, increased coverage for mental illness has been seen as creating inefficiencies and increasing total spending, based largely on results from the RAND Health Insurance Experiment conducted in the 1970s. Newer evidence suggests that cost control techniques associated with managed care give health plans alternatives to discriminatory coverage for containing costs. We review both eras of research on mental health insurance and conclude that comprehensive parity implemented in the context of managed care would have little impact on total spending.
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?
A key factor in the passage of the MHPAEA was the belief among policymakers, supported by rigorous academic research, that parity could improve fairness in insurance coverage without dramatically increasing health care expenditures.
“A key factor in the passage of the MHPAEA was the belief among policymakers, supported by rigorous academic research,20,21 that parity could improve fairness in insurance coverage without dramatically increasing health care expenditures.”
From Parity and Out-of-Pocket Spending for Children With High Mental Health or Substance Abuse Expenditures (2013) · cites this paper as [21]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 11 · Cited by 57
- Authors
- Barry, C. L., Frank, R. G., & McGuire, T. G.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Venue
- Health Affairs
- Publisher
- Health Affairs Publishing, LLC
- Published
- 2006-05
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 623-634
- ISSN
- 0278-2715 (ISSN-L)
- 1544-5208
- OpenAlex
- W1981291341
- Cited by
- 57
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 11.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Health Affairs (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5p50da010233-10)
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA10233-06)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Healthcare Systems and Reforms
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Keywords
- mental health parity, mental illness, health insurance coverage, managed care, health care costs, RAND Health Insurance Experiment, cost containment, insurance discrimination, mental health benefits
- MeSH terms
- Cost Control, Health Benefit Plans, Employee, Humans, Insurance, Psychiatric, Managed Care Programs, Mental Health Services, Social Justice, United States, Insurance Selection Bias, Cost Sharing, Employer Health Costs, Medically Uninsured
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
