Impact of full mental health and substance abuse parity for children in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program implemented full mental health and substance abuse parity in January 2001. Evaluation of this policy revealed that parity increased adult beneficiaries' financial protection by lowering mental health and substance abuse out-of-pocket costs for service users in most plans studied but did not increase rates of service use or spending among adult service users. This study examined the effects of full mental health and substance abuse parity for children. METHODS: Employing a quasiexperimental design, we compared children in 7 Federal Employees Health Benefits plans from 1999 to 2002 with children in a matched set of plans that did not have a comparable change in mental health and substance abuse coverage. Using a difference-in-differences analysis, we examined the likelihood of child mental health and substance abuse service use, total spending among child service users, and out-of-pocket spending. RESULTS: The apparent increase in the rate of children's mental health and substance abuse service use after implementation of parity was almost entirely due to secular trends of increased service utilization. Estimates for children's mental health and substance abuse spending conditional on this service use showed significant decreases in spending per user attributable to parity for 2 plans; spending estimates for the other plans were not statistically significant. Children using these services in 3 of 7 plans experienced statistically significant reductions in out-of-pocket spending attributable to the parity policy, and the average dollar savings was sizeable for users in those 3 plans. In the remaining 4 plans, out-of-pocket spending also decreased, but these decreases were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Full mental health and substance abuse parity for children, within the context of managed care, can achieve equivalence of benefits in health insurance coverage and improve financial protection without adversely affecting health care costs but may not expand access for children who need these 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?
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 [8]
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 [8]
Previous research found that parity significantly lowered average out-of-pocket spending on MH/SUD treatment for children.
“Previous research found that parity significantly lowered average out-of-pocket (OOP) spending on MH/SUD treatment of children.”
From Parity and Out-of-Pocket Spending for Children With High Mental Health or Substance Abuse Expenditures (2013) · cites this paper as [8]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 17 · Cited by 42
- Authors
- Azrin, S. T., Huskamp, H. A., Azzone, V., Goldman, H. H., Frank, R. G., Burnam, M. A., Normand, S.-L. T., Ridgely, M. S., Young, A. S., Barry, C. L., Busch, A. B., & Moran, G.
- Affiliations
- Westat (United States) (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
- RAND Corporation (US)
- United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- PEDIATRICS
- Publisher
- American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
- Published
- 2007-02-01
- Volume
- 119
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e452-e459
- ISSN
- 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-4275
- PMC
- PMC1995034
- OpenAlex
- W1991990266
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 7.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- U.S. Public Health Service (HHS-100-00-0025)
- National Institute of Mental Health (1 K01 MH 66109, K01MH066109, T31 MH19733-08, K01MH071714, T32MH019733)
- 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 › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Healthcare Systems and Reforms
- Keywords
- mental health parity, children, Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, out-of-pocket costs, health care spending, managed care, health insurance coverage, access to mental health care, financial protection
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Child, Child Health Services, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health Services, National Health Insurance, United States, United States, Insurance Coverage, Substance-Related Disorders
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