Are People With Mental Illness Getting the Help They Need? New Findings About Parity Laws, Insurance Coverage, and Access to Care
Jan 1, 2000
Much Ado About Nothing?
|PDF file||0.7 MB||
Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.
Objective: To determine whether state-level parity legislation has led to an increase in utilization of mental health services. Data Sources: Healthcare For Communities (HCC), a multi-site nationally representative study sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation that tracks health care system changes for mental health and substance abuse treatment. Information on state-level parity legislation was provided by state offices of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI); local and state market data come from the Area Resource File; information on other health mandates from Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Study Design: Two-stage regressions are used to estimate the effect of state parity legislation on use of any mental health services, use of specialty mental health services, and number of specialty visits in the past year. In the first stage, the authors predicted the probability that a state decides to pass parity legislation as a function of state health care market indicators and previous legislative activity. The fitted probability is used in the second stage to determine the effect of this legislation on access and utilization. Principal Findings: State parity legislation is not associated with a significant increase in any of the measures of mental health services utilization. These results are robust to various specifications of the models. Conclusions: Those states that are able to pass parity legislation do not experience significant increases in the utilization of mental health services. This may be due in part to a loss of coverage for those people most at risk for mental health disorders. The results could be very different, however, if strong federal legislation were passed.
Originally published in: Health Services Research, v. 35, no. 1, part II, 2000, pp. 263-275.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Reprint series. The Reprint was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1992 to 2011 that represented previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see External Publications.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.