The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) evaluation study: Did parity differentially affect substance use disorder and mental health benefits offered by behavioral healthcare carve-out and carve-in plans?

How policymakers innovate around behavioral health: adoption of the New Mexico "No Behavioral Health Cost-Sharing" law

State policymakers have long sought to improve access to mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) treatment through insurance market reforms. Examining decisions made by innovative policymakers ("policy entrepreneurs") can inform the potential scope and limits of legislative reform. Beginning in 2022, New Mexico became the first state to eliminate cost-sharing for MH/SUD treatment in private insurance plans subject to state regulation. Based on key informant interviews (n = 30), this study recounts the law's passage and intended impact. Key facilitators to the law's passage included receptive leadership, legislative champions with medical and insurance backgrounds, the use of local research evidence, advocate testimony, support from health industry figures, the severity of MH/SUD, and increased attention to MH/SUD during the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings have important implications for states considering similar laws to improve access to MH/SUD treatment.

Quantifying Balance Billing for Out-of-Network Behavioral Health Care in Employer-Sponsored Insurance

OBJECTIVE

The study estimated balance billing for out-of-network behavioral health claims and described subscriber characteristics associated with higher billing.

METHODS

Claims data (2011-2014) from a national managed behavioral health organization's employer-sponsored insurance (N=196,034 family-years with out-of-network behavioral health claims) were used to calculate inflation-adjusted annual balance billing-the submitted amount (charged by provider) minus the allowed amount (insurer agreed to pay plus patient cost-sharing) and any discounts offered by the provider. Among family-years with complete sociodemographic data (N=68,659), regressions modeled balance billing as a function of plan and provider supply, subscriber and family-year, and employer characteristics. A two-part model accounted for family-years without balance billing.

RESULTS

Among the 50% of family-years with balance billing, mean±SD balance billing was $861±$3,500 (median, $175; 90th percentile, $1,684). Adjusted analysis found balance billing was higher ($523 higher, 95% confidence interval [CI]=$340, $705) for carve-out versus carve-in plans and for health maintenance organization (HMO) enrollees versus non-HMO enrollees ($156, 95% CI=$75, $237); for subscribers with a bachelor's degree, compared with an associate's degree or with a high school diploma or lower (between $172 [95% CI=$228, $116] and $224 [95% CI=$284, $163] higher, respectively); and for subscribers ages 45-54, compared with those ages 35-44 and 18-24 (between $57 [95% CI=$103, $10] and $290 [95% CI=$398, $183] higher, respectively). Balance billing was lower in states with more in-network providers per capita (-$8, 95% CI=-$10, -$5).

CONCLUSIONS

Balance billing for out-of-network behavioral health claims may be burdensome. Expanded behavioral health networks may improve access.

Insurance expansions and adolescent use of substance use disorder treatment

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence on the effects of expansions to private and public insurance programs on adolescent specialty substance use disorder (SUD) treatment use.

DATA SOURCE/STUDY SETTING

The Treatment Episodes Data Set (TEDS), 1996 to 2017.

STUDY DESIGN

A quasi-experimental difference-in-differences design using observational data.

DATA COLLECTION

The TEDS provides administrative data on admissions to specialty SUD treatment.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Expansions of laws that compel private insurers to cover SUD treatment services at parity with general health care increase adolescent admissions by 26% (P < .05). These increases are driven by nonintensive outpatient admissions, the most common treatment episodes, which rise by 30% (P < .05) postparity law. In contrast, increases in income eligibility for public insurance targeting those 6-18 years old are not statistically associated with SUD treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Private insurance expansions allow more adolescents to receive SUD treatment, while public insurance income eligibility expansions do not appear to influence adolescent SUD treatment.

U.S. alcohol treatment admissions after the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act: Do state parity laws and race/ethnicity make a difference?

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) was a landmark federal policy aimed at increasing access to substance use treatment, yet studies have found relatively weak impacts on treatment utilization. The present study considers whether there may be moderating effects of pre-existing state parity laws and differential changes in treatment rates across racial/ethnic groups.

METHODS

We analyzed data from SAMHSA'S Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) from 1999 to 2013, assessing changes in alcohol treatment admission rates across states with heterogeneous, pre-existing parity laws. NIAAA's Alcohol Policy Information System data were used to code states into five groups based on the presence and strength of states' pre-MHPAEA mandates for insurance coverage of alcohol treatment and parity (weak; coverage no parity; partial parity if coverage offered; coverage and partial parity; strong). Regression models included state fixed effects and a cubic time trend adjusting for state- and year-level covariates, and assessed MHPAEA main effects and interactions with state parity laws in the overall sample and racial/ethnic subgroups.

RESULTS

While we found no significant main effects of federal parity on alcohol treatment rates, there was a significantly greater increase in treatment rates in states requiring health plans to cover alcohol treatment and having some pre-existing parity. This was seen overall and in all three racial/ethnic groups (increasing by 25% in whites, 26% in blacks, and 42% in Hispanics above the expected treatment rate for these groups). Post-MHPAEA, the alcohol treatment admissions rate in these states rose to the level of states with the strongest pre-existing parity laws.

CONCLUSION

The MHPAEA was associated with increased alcohol treatment rates for diverse racial/ethnic groups in states with both alcohol treatment coverage mandates and some prior parity protections. This suggests the importance of the local policy context in understanding early effects of the MHPAEA.