Who Would Pay Higher Taxes for Better Mental Health? Results of a Large-Sample National Choice Experiment

The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Stakeholder preference evaluations are increasingly emphasized in healthcare policy and health technology assessment. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are the most common method for quantifying preferences among patients, the public, and healthcare professionals. While prior reviews (1990-2017) have examined DCE trends, no comprehensive synthesis exists for studies published since 2018. This updated review (2018-2023) provides critical insights into evolving methodologies and global trends in health-related DCEs.

METHODS

A systematic search (2018-2023) of Medline, Embase, and Web of Science identified relevant studies. Studies were screened for inclusion and data were extracted, including details on DCE design and analysis. To enable trend comparisons, the search strategy and extraction items aligned with previous reviews.

RESULTS

Of 2663 identified papers, 1279 met the inclusion criteria, reflecting a significant rise in published DCEs over time. DCEs were conducted globally, with a remarkable increase in publications from Asia and Africa compared with previous reviews. Experimental designs and econometric models have advanced, continuing prior trends. Notably, most recent DCEs were administered online.

DISCUSSION

The rapid growth of DCE applications underscores their importance in health research. While the methodology is advancing rapidly, it is crucial that researchers provide full transparency in reporting their methods, particularly in detailing experimental designs and validity tests, which are too often overlooked. Key recommendations include improving reporting of experimental designs, applying validity tests, following good practices for presenting benefit-risk attributes, and adopting open science practices. Ensuring methodological rigor will maximize the impact and reproducibility of DCE research in health economics.

A Tale of Two Taxes: Implementation of Earmarked Taxes for Behavioral Health Services in California and Washington State

OBJECTIVE

The authors sought to characterize perceptions of the impacts, attributes, and support for taxes earmarked for behavioral health services and to compare perceptions of the taxes among professionals in California and Washington, two states differing in earmarked tax designs.

METHODS

Surveys were completed by 155 public agency and community organization professionals involved in tax implementation in California (N=87) and Washington State (N=68) during 2022-2023 (29% response rate). Respondents indicated their perceptions of the taxes' impacts, attributes, and support. Responses were summed as aggregate scores and were also analyzed as individual items. Bivariate analyses were used to compare responses of professionals in California versus Washington State.

RESULTS

Earmarked taxes were generally regarded positively. Of the respondents, >80% strongly agreed that the taxes increased funding for services and were helpful, and only 10% strongly agreed that the taxes decreased behavioral health funding from other sources. Substantially more respondents in California than in Washington State strongly agreed that taxes' reporting requirements were complicated (45% vs. 5%, p<0.001) and that the taxes increased unjustified scrutiny of services or systems (33% vs. 2%, p<0.001). However, more respondents in California than in Washington State also strongly agreed that the taxes increased public awareness about behavioral health (56% vs. 15%, p<0.001) and decreased behavioral health stigma (47% vs. 14%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of taxes earmarked for behavioral health services may vary by design features of the tax. Such features include stigma-reduction initiatives and tax spending and reporting requirements.

Earmarked Taxes for Mental Health Services in the United States: A Local and State Legal Mapping Study

Policy Points Local governments are increasingly adopting policies that earmark taxes for mental health services, and approximately 30% of the US population lives in a jurisdiction with such a policy. Policies earmarking taxes for mental health services are heterogenous in their design, spending requirements, and oversight. In many jurisdictions, the annual per capita revenue generated by these taxes exceeds that of some major federal funding sources for mental health.

CONTEXT

State and local governments have been adopting taxes that earmark (i.e., dedicate) revenue for mental health. However, this emergent financing model has not been systematically assessed. We sought to identify all jurisdictions in the United States with policies earmarking taxes for mental health services and characterize attributes of these taxes.

METHODS

A legal mapping study was conducted. Literature reviews and 11 key informant interviews informed search strings. We then searched legal databases (HeinOnline, Cheetah tax repository) and municipal data sources. We collected information on the year the tax went into effect, passage by ballot initiative (yes/no), tax base, tax rate, and revenue generated annually (gross and per capita).

FINDINGS

We identified 207 policies earmarking taxes for mental health services (95.7% local, 4.3% state, 95.7% passed via ballot initiative). Property taxes (73.9%) and sales taxes/fees (25.1%) were most common. There was substantial heterogeneity in tax design, spending requirements, and oversight. Approximately 30% of the US population lives in a jurisdiction with a tax earmarked for mental health, and these taxes generate over $3.57 billion annually. The median per capita annual revenue generated by these taxes was $18.59 (range = $0.04-$197.09). Per capita annual revenue exceeded $25.00 in 63 jurisdictions (about five times annual per capita spending for mental health provided by the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration).

CONCLUSIONS

Policies earmarking taxes for mental health services are diverse in design and are an increasingly common local financing strategy. The revenue generated by these taxes is substantial in many jurisdictions.

A policy implementation study of earmarked taxes for mental health services: study protocol

BACKGROUND

Insufficient funding is frequently identified as a critical barrier to the implementation and sustainment of evidence-based practices (EBPs). Thus, increasing access to funding is recognized as an implementation strategy. Policies that create earmarked taxes-defined as taxes for which revenue can only be spent on specific activities-are an increasingly common mental health financing strategy that could improve the reach of EBPs. This project's specific aims are to (1) identify all jurisdictions in the USA that have implemented earmarked taxes for mental health and catalogue information about tax design; (2) characterize experiences implementing earmarked taxes among local (e.g., county, city) mental health agency leaders and other government and community organization officials and assess their perceptions of the acceptability and feasibility of different types of policy implementation strategies; and (3) develop a framework to guide effect earmarked tax designs, inform the selection of implementation strategies, and disseminate the framework to policy audiences.

METHODS

The project uses the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework to inform data collection about the determinants and processes of tax implementation and Leeman's typology of implementation strategies to examine the acceptability and feasibility strategies which could support earmarked tax policy implementation. A legal mapping will be conducted to achieve aim 1. To achieve aim 2, a survey will be conducted of 300 local mental health agency leaders and other government and community organization officials involved with the implementation of earmarked taxes for mental health. The survey will be followed by approximately 50 interviews with these officials. To achieve aim 3, quantitative and qualitative data will be integrated through a systematic framework development and dissemination process.

DISCUSSION

This exploratory policy implementation process study will build the evidence base for outer-context implementation determinants and strategies by focusing on policies that earmarked taxes for mental health services.

Public mental health service use among U.S. adults age 50+ compared to younger age groups

Despite increasing numbers of older-adult mental health service users, few studies have examined their use of public mental health services. Using the 2018 and 2019 Mental Health-Client Level data for clients age 18+ (N = 4,291,737 in 2018 and N = 4,513,946 in 2019), we examined whether those age 50+ who received outpatient-only, both outpatient and inpatient, or inpatient-only services had greater odds of certain types of mental disorders, especially schizophrenia, than younger adults. Of all users, 25.3% were age 50-64 and 6.7% were age 65 + . Multivariable logistic regression results, controlling for gender, race/ethnicity, census region, and alcohol/substance use disorder, showed that compared to the 30-49 age group, the 50-64 and 65+ age groups had higher odds of having depressive disorder in outpatient-only settings; however, they had consistently higher odds of a diagnosis of schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder in all three service settings. Along with advocating for increased funding for publicly-financed mental health services, social workers in public mental health service systems should ensure that they utilize effective intervention skills for older adults with serious mental illness.