Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2004 Oct;39(5):1361-77.
doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00294.x.

The effects of state mental health parity legislation on perceived quality of insurance coverage, perceived access to care, and use of mental health specialty care

Yuhua Bao  1 , Roland Sturm
Affiliations

The effects of state mental health parity legislation on perceived quality of insurance coverage, perceived access to care, and use of mental health specialty care

Yuhua Bao et al. Health Serv Res. 2004 Oct.

Abstract

Objective: To assess the impacts of recent state mental health parity legislation on perceived quality of health insurance coverage, perceived access to needed health care, and use of mental health specialty services by individuals with likely need for mental health care.

Data sources: The study sample came from two waves of a national household survey first fielded in 1997-1998 and then in 2000-2001. The analysis used a subset of the sample.

Study design: The study took the Difference-in-Difference-in-Difference approach to investigate changes in self-perceived quality of health insurance coverage and access to needed health care, and use of mental health specialty care by the group with mental disorders (relative to those without) in states with parity legislation of different comprehensiveness (relative to the nonparity states) in the years after the law (relative to before the law).

Principal findings: Overall, there were no significant or consistent effects of the parity legislation. Descriptive statistics showed significant changes in some (but not all) outcome variables, but these results disappeared in detailed statistical analyses by controlling for important covariates.

Conclusions: The null findings of the effects of state mental health parity mandates suggest that under ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act), the scope of state parity legislation may have been restricted because of large proportion of self-insured employers. Furthermore, comprehensiveness of state legislation appears to be related to the traditional level of use of mental health specialty care, which becomes another confounder for the potential policy effects.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Bao Y. “Predicting the Use of Outpatient Mental Health Services: Do Modeling Approaches Make a Difference?.”. Inquiry. 2002;39(2):168–83. - PubMed
    1. Duan N, Manning W, Morris C, Newhouse J. “A Comparison of Alternative Models for the Demand for Medical Care.”. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics. 1983;1(2):115–26.
    1. Gabel J, Hurst K, Whitmore H, Hawkins S, Hoffman C, Jensen G. Health Benefits in 1998 for Small Employers. Palo Alto, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation; 1999.
    1. General Accounting Office. Mental Health Parity Act: Despite New Federal Standards, Mental Health Benefits Remain Limited. Washington, DC: GAO; 2000. Report no. GAO/HEHS-00-95.
    1. Gitterman D P, Sturm R, Pacula R L, Scheffler R M. “Does the Sunset of Mental Health Parity Really Matter?.”. Administration and Policy in Mental Health. 2001;28(5):353–69. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms