Dataset Information

An Examination of Factors Affecting State Legislators' Support for Parity Laws for Different Mental Illnesses.

ABSTRACT: Mental health parity legislation can improve mental health outcomes. U.S. state legislators determine whether state parity laws are adopted, making it critical to assess factors affecting policy support. This study examines the prevalence and demographic correlates of legislators' support for state parity laws for four mental illnesses- major depression disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), schizophrenia, and anorexia/bulimia. Using a 2017 cross-sectional survey of 475 U.S. legislators, we conducted bivariate analyses and multivariate logistic regression. Support for parity was highest for schizophrenia (57%), PTSD (55%), and major depression (53%) and lowest for anorexia/bulimia (40%). Support for parity was generally higher among females, more liberal legislators, legislators in the Northeast region of the country, and those who had previously sought treatment for mental illness. These findings highlight the importance of better disseminating evidence about anorexia/bulimia and can inform dissemination efforts about mental health parity laws to state legislators.

SUBMITTER: Pilar M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9188272 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An Examination of Factors Affecting State Legislators' Support for Parity Laws for Different Mental Illnesses.

Pilar Meagan M Purtle Jonathan J Powell Byron J BJ Mazzucca Stephanie S Eyler Amy A AA Brownson Ross C RC

Community mental health journal 20220611 1

Mental health parity legislation can improve mental health outcomes. U.S. state legislators determine whether state parity laws are adopted, making it critical to assess factors affecting policy support. This study examines the prevalence and demographic correlates of legislators' support for state parity laws for four mental illnesses- major depression disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), schizophrenia, and anorexia/bulimia. Using a 2017 cross-sectional survey of 475 U.S. legislator ...[more]

PMID: 35689717

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe passage of the 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act and the 2010 Affordable Care Act incorporated parity for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment into federal legislation. However, prior research provides us with scant evidence as to whether federal parity legislation will hold the potential for improving access to SUD treatment.ObjectiveTo examine the effect of state-level SUD parity laws on state-aggregate SUD treatment rates and to shed light on the impact of the recent federal SUD parity legislation.Design, setting, and participantsWe conducted a quasi-experimental study using a 2-way (state and year) fixed-effect method. We included all known specialty SUD treatment facilities in the United States and examined treatment rates from October 1, 2000, through March 31, 2008. Our main source of data was the National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services, which provides facility-level information on specialty SUD treatment.InterventionsState-level SUD parity laws during the study period.Main outcomes and measuresState-aggregate SUD treatment rates in (1) all specialty SUD treatment facilities and (2) specialty SUD treatment facilities accepting private insurance.ResultsThe implementation of any SUD parity law increased the treatment rate by 9% (P < .001) in all specialty SUD treatment facilities and by 15% (P = .02) in facilities accepting private insurance. Full parity and parity only if SUD coverage is offered increased the SUD treatment rate by 13% (P = .02) and 8% (P = .04), respectively, in all facilities and by 21% (P = .03) and 10% (P = .04), respectively, in facilities accepting private insurance.Conclusions and relevanceWe found a positive effect of the implementation of state SUD parity legislation on access to specialty SUD treatment. Furthermore, the positive association is more pronounced in states with more comprehensive parity laws. Our findings suggest that federal parity legislation holds the potential to improve access to SUD treatment.

Project description:ImportanceMany US children and adolescents with mental and behavioral health (MBH) conditions do not access MBH services. One contributing factor is limited insurance coverage, which is influenced by state MBH insurance parity legislation.ObjectiveTo investigate the association of patient-level factors and the comprehensiveness of state MBH insurance legislation with perceived poor access to MBH care and perceived inadequate MBH insurance coverage for US children and adolescents.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted using responses by caregivers of children and adolescents aged 6 to 17 years with MBH conditions in the National Survey of Children's Health and State Mental Health Insurance Laws Dataset from 2016 to 2019. Data analyses were conducted from May 2022 to January 2024.ExposureMBH insurance legislation comprehensiveness defined by State Mental Health Insurance Laws Dataset (SMHILD) scores (range, 0-7).Main outcomes and measuresPerceived poor access to MBH care and perceived inadequacy of MBH insurance were assessed. Multivariable regression models adjusted for individual-level characteristics.ResultsThere were 29 876 caregivers of children and adolescents with MBH conditions during the study period representing 14 292 300 youths nationally (7 816 727 aged 12-17 years [54.7%]; 8 455 171 male [59.2%]; 292 543 Asian [2.0%], 2 076 442 Black [14.5%], and 9 942 088 White [69.6%%]; 3 202 525 Hispanic [22.4%]). A total of 3193 caregivers representing 1 770 492 children and adolescents (12.4%) perceived poor access to MBH care, and 3517 caregivers representing 1 643 260 of 13 175 295 children and adolescents (12.5%) perceived inadequate MBH insurance coverage. In multivariable models, there were higher odds of perceived poor access to MBH care among caregivers of Black (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.04-1.75) and Asian (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.01-2.84) compared with White children and adolescents. As exposures to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) increased, the odds of perceived poor access to MBH care increased (aORs ranged from 1.68; 95%, CI 1.32-2.13 for 1 ACE to 4.28; 95% CI, 3.17-5.77 for ≥4 ACEs compared with no ACEs). Compared with living in states with the least comprehensive MBH insurance legislation (SMHILD score, 0-2), living in states with the most comprehensive legislation (SMHILD score, 5-7) was associated with lower odds of perceived poor access to MBH care (aOR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63-0.99), while living in states with moderately comprehensive legislation (score, 4) was associated with higher odds of perceived inadequate MBH insurance coverage (aOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.01-1.49).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, living in states with the most comprehensive MBH insurance legislation was associated with lower odds of perceived poor access to MBH care among caregivers for children and adolescents with MBH conditions. This finding suggests that advocacy for comprehensive mental health parity legislation may promote improved child and adolescent access to MBH services.

Project description:BackgroundSpain healthcare system is decentralized, with seventeen autonomous regions overseeing healthcare. However, penitentiary healthcare is managed nationally, except in Catalonia, the Basque Country, and Navarra. These variations impact mental health care provision for inmates with serious mental illness (SMI).ObjectiveTo delineate differences between regions in terms of mental health care provision for individuals with SMI, available resources, and the perspectives of healthcare professionals operating in the Spanish prison environment.MethodsEmploying an explanatory sequential mixed-method approach, the study conducted an extensive literature review, quantitative data collection through structured questionnaires, and qualitative data collection via focus groups and four in-depth interviews. Analysis involved calculating percentages and ratios for quantitative data and thematic analysis for qualitative data interpretation to comprehensively understand mental healthcare provision.ResultsIn December 2021, about 4% of inmates in Spain had SMI. There are three distinct models of mental healthcare within the Spanish prison system. The traditional penitentiary model, representing 83% of the incarcerated population, operates independently under the General Secretariat of Penitentiary Institutions at a national level. This model relies on an average of 5.2 penitentiary General Practitioners (pGP) per 1,000 inmates for psychiatric and general healthcare. External psychiatrists are engaged for part-time psychiatric assessment. Acute psychiatric hospitalization occurs in general nursing modules within penitentiary centers or in Restricted Access Units (RAUs) in reference hospitals. Two penitentiary psychiatric hospitals provide care to unimputable SMI inmates from all over Spain. Innovative penitentiary models, constituting 17% of the prison population, integrate penitentiary healthcare within regional public health systems. The Basque Country features a Mental Health Unit with full-time care teams within the penitentiary center. Catalonia emphasizes community care, providing full-time dedicated psychiatric services within and outside prisons, ensuring continued care in the community. Both models prioritize personnel with specialized mental health training and compensation akin to non-prison healthcare settings.ConclusionsRegional disparities in penitentiary mental healthcare models in Spain result in resource inequalities, impacting specialized care for inmates with SMI and opportunities for healthcare professionals. The models in the Basque Country and Catalonia offer valuable experiences for penitentiary healthcare.

Project description:Importance:Oral anticancer medications are increasingly important but costly treatment options for patients with cancer. By early 2017, 43 states and Washington, DC, had passed laws to ensure patients with private insurance enrolled in fully insured health plans pay no more for anticancer medications administered by mouth than anticancer medications administered by infusion. Federal legislation regarding this issue is currently pending. Despite their rapid acceptance, the changes associated with state adoption of oral chemotherapy parity laws have not been described. Objective:To estimate changes in oral anticancer medication use, out-of-pocket spending, and health plan spending associated with oral chemotherapy parity law adoption. Design, Setting, and Participants:Analysis of administrative health plan claims data from 2008-2012 for 3 large nationwide insurers aggregated by the Health Care Cost Institute. Data analysis was first completed in 2015 and updated in 2017. The study population included 63 780 adults living in 1 of 16 states that passed parity laws during the study period and who received anticancer drug treatment for which orally administered treatment options were available. Study analysis used a difference-in-differences approach. Exposures:Time period before and after adoption of state parity laws, controlling for whether the patient was enrolled in a plan subject to parity (fully insured) or not (self-funded, exempt via the Employee Retirement Income Security Act). Main Outcomes and Measures:Oral anticancer medication use, out-of-pocket spending, and total health care spending. Results:Of the 63 780 adults aged 18 through 64 years, 51.4% participated in fully insured plans and 48.6% in self-funded plans (57.2% were women; 76.8% were aged 45 to 64 years). The use of oral anticancer medication treatment as a proportion of all anticancer treatment increased from 18% to 22% (adjusted difference-in-differences risk ratio [aDDRR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.96-1.13; P = .34) comparing months before vs after parity. In plans subject to parity laws, the proportion of prescription fills for orally administered therapy without copayment increased from 15.0% to 53.0%, more than double the increase (12.3%-18.0%) in plans not subject to parity (P < .001). The proportion of patients with out-of-pocket spending of more than $100 per month increased from 8.4% to 11.1% compared with a slight decline from 12.0% to 11.7% in plans not subject to parity (P = .004). In plans subject to parity laws, estimated monthly out-of-pocket spending decreased by $19.44 at the 25th percentile, by $32.13 at the 50th percentile, and by $10.83 at the 75th percentile but increased at the 90th ($37.19) and 95th ($143.25) percentiles after parity (all P < .001, controlling for changes in plans not subject to parity). Parity laws did not increase 6-month total spending for users of any anticancer therapy or for users of oral anticancer therapy alone. Conclusions and Relevance:While oral chemotherapy parity laws modestly improved financial protection for many patients without increasing total health care spending, these laws alone may be insufficient to ensure that patients are protected from high out-of-pocket medication costs.

Dataset Information

An Examination of Factors Affecting State Legislators' Support for Parity Laws for Different Mental Illnesses.

Publications

An Examination of Factors Affecting State Legislators' Support for Parity Laws for Different Mental Illnesses.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets