Implementation of Mental Health Parity: Lessons From California
This article reports the experiences of health plans, providers, and consumers with California's mental health parity law and discusses implications for implementation of the 2008 federal parity law. This study used a multimodal data collection approach to assess the first five years of Califor...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) D.C.), 2009-12, Vol.60 (12), p.1589-1594 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1594 |
---|---|
container_issue | 12 |
container_start_page | 1589 |
container_title | Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) |
container_volume | 60 |
creator | Rosenbach, Margo L Lake, Timothy K Williams, Susan R Buck, Jeffrey A |
description | This article reports the experiences of health plans, providers, and consumers with California's mental health parity law and discusses implications for implementation of the 2008 federal parity law.
This study used a multimodal data collection approach to assess the first five years of California's parity implementation (from 2000 to 2005). Telephone interviews were conducted with 68 state-level stakeholders, and in-person interviews were conducted with 77 community-based stakeholders. Six focus groups included 52 providers, and six included 32 consumers. A semistructured interview protocol was used. Interview notes and transcripts were coded to facilitate analysis.
Health plans eliminated differential benefit limits and cost-sharing requirements for certain mental disorders to comply with the law, and they used managed care to control costs. In response to concerns about access to and quality of care, the state expanded oversight of health plans, issuing access-to-care regulations and conducting focused studies. California's parity law applied to a limited list of psychiatric diagnoses. Health plan executives said they spent considerable resources clarifying which diagnoses were covered at parity levels and concluded that the limited diagnosis list was unnecessary with managed care. Providers indicated that the diagnosis list had unintended consequences, including incentives to assign a more severe diagnosis that would be covered at parity levels, rather than a less severe diagnosis that would not be covered at such levels. The lack of consumer knowledge about parity was widely acknowledged, and consumers in the focus groups requested additional information about parity.
Experiences in California suggest that implementation of the 2008 federal parity law should include monitoring health plan performance related to access and quality, in addition to monitoring coverage and costs; examining the breadth of diagnoses covered by health plans; and mounting a campaign to educate consumers about their insurance benefits. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1176/ps.2009.60.12.1589 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_213131625</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1921563011</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a411t-2fcb6c362c89f8e950cb5c3c5ac4561d986832e1ba31b32d739c42743d9ad23c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMFLwzAUxoMobk7_AQ9SBI_t8pImabyIDOcGEz3ouaRpih1tU5PusP_ejBV3k3d474Pfe9_jQ-gWcAIg-Lz3CcFYJjxokgDL5BmaAmMilgLj8zBjwWIiKJ6gK--3GGMQwC_RBKRkBFIxRU_rtm9Ma7pBDbXtIltFbwfRRCujmuE7-lCuHvaP0cZ4bzsfLZ1to4Vq6sq6rlbX6KJSjTc3Y5-hr-XL52IVb95f14vnTaxSgCEmlS64ppzoTFaZkQzrgmmqmdIp41DKjGeUGCgUhYKSUlCpUyJSWkpVEqrpDN0f7_bO_uyMH_Kt3bkuWOYEaChOWIDIEdLOeu9MlfeubpXb54DzQ2R5H_AQWc6DJvkhsrB0N17eFa0pTytjRgF4GAHltWoqpzpd-z-OEJCpxFng5kdO9X19eu8f61_awIGT</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>213131625</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Implementation of Mental Health Parity: Lessons From California</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>American Psychiatric Publishing Journals (1997-Present)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Rosenbach, Margo L ; Lake, Timothy K ; Williams, Susan R ; Buck, Jeffrey A</creator><creatorcontrib>Rosenbach, Margo L ; Lake, Timothy K ; Williams, Susan R ; Buck, Jeffrey A</creatorcontrib><description>This article reports the experiences of health plans, providers, and consumers with California's mental health parity law and discusses implications for implementation of the 2008 federal parity law.
This study used a multimodal data collection approach to assess the first five years of California's parity implementation (from 2000 to 2005). Telephone interviews were conducted with 68 state-level stakeholders, and in-person interviews were conducted with 77 community-based stakeholders. Six focus groups included 52 providers, and six included 32 consumers. A semistructured interview protocol was used. Interview notes and transcripts were coded to facilitate analysis.
Health plans eliminated differential benefit limits and cost-sharing requirements for certain mental disorders to comply with the law, and they used managed care to control costs. In response to concerns about access to and quality of care, the state expanded oversight of health plans, issuing access-to-care regulations and conducting focused studies. California's parity law applied to a limited list of psychiatric diagnoses. Health plan executives said they spent considerable resources clarifying which diagnoses were covered at parity levels and concluded that the limited diagnosis list was unnecessary with managed care. Providers indicated that the diagnosis list had unintended consequences, including incentives to assign a more severe diagnosis that would be covered at parity levels, rather than a less severe diagnosis that would not be covered at such levels. The lack of consumer knowledge about parity was widely acknowledged, and consumers in the focus groups requested additional information about parity.
Experiences in California suggest that implementation of the 2008 federal parity law should include monitoring health plan performance related to access and quality, in addition to monitoring coverage and costs; examining the breadth of diagnoses covered by health plans; and mounting a campaign to educate consumers about their insurance benefits.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1075-2730</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1557-9700</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1176/ps.2009.60.12.1589</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19952147</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association</publisher><subject><![CDATA[Biological and medical sciences ; California ; Consumer Behavior - economics ; Consumer Behavior - legislation & jurisprudence ; Consumer Health Information - economics ; Consumer Health Information - legislation & jurisprudence ; Cost Sharing - economics ; Cost Sharing - legislation & jurisprudence ; Eligibility Determination - economics ; Eligibility Determination - legislation & jurisprudence ; Focus Groups ; Health Plan Implementation - economics ; Health Plan Implementation - legislation & jurisprudence ; Health Services Accessibility - economics ; Health Services Accessibility - legislation & jurisprudence ; Humans ; Insurance Benefits - economics ; Insurance Benefits - legislation & jurisprudence ; Insurance Coverage - economics ; Insurance Coverage - legislation & jurisprudence ; Insurance, Psychiatric - economics ; Insurance, Psychiatric - legislation & jurisprudence ; Managed Care Programs - economics ; Managed Care Programs - legislation & jurisprudence ; Medical sciences ; Mental Disorders - diagnosis ; Mental Disorders - economics ; Mental Disorders - therapy ; Mental health ; Mental Health Services - economics ; Mental Health Services - legislation & jurisprudence ; Parity ; Prevention. Health policy. Planification ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychopathology. Psychiatry ; Quality Assurance, Health Care - economics ; Quality Assurance, Health Care - legislation & jurisprudence ; Social psychiatry. Ethnopsychiatry]]></subject><ispartof>Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.), 2009-12, Vol.60 (12), p.1589-1594</ispartof><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc. Dec 2009</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a411t-2fcb6c362c89f8e950cb5c3c5ac4561d986832e1ba31b32d739c42743d9ad23c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a411t-2fcb6c362c89f8e950cb5c3c5ac4561d986832e1ba31b32d739c42743d9ad23c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://psychiatryonline.org/doi/epdf/10.1176/ps.2009.60.12.1589$$EPDF$$P50$$Gappi$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/ps.2009.60.12.1589$$EHTML$$P50$$Gappi$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,2842,21605,21606,21607,27901,27902,77536,77541</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=22194908$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19952147$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rosenbach, Margo L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lake, Timothy K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, Susan R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buck, Jeffrey A</creatorcontrib><title>Implementation of Mental Health Parity: Lessons From California</title><title>Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.)</title><addtitle>Psychiatr Serv</addtitle><description>This article reports the experiences of health plans, providers, and consumers with California's mental health parity law and discusses implications for implementation of the 2008 federal parity law.
This study used a multimodal data collection approach to assess the first five years of California's parity implementation (from 2000 to 2005). Telephone interviews were conducted with 68 state-level stakeholders, and in-person interviews were conducted with 77 community-based stakeholders. Six focus groups included 52 providers, and six included 32 consumers. A semistructured interview protocol was used. Interview notes and transcripts were coded to facilitate analysis.
Health plans eliminated differential benefit limits and cost-sharing requirements for certain mental disorders to comply with the law, and they used managed care to control costs. In response to concerns about access to and quality of care, the state expanded oversight of health plans, issuing access-to-care regulations and conducting focused studies. California's parity law applied to a limited list of psychiatric diagnoses. Health plan executives said they spent considerable resources clarifying which diagnoses were covered at parity levels and concluded that the limited diagnosis list was unnecessary with managed care. Providers indicated that the diagnosis list had unintended consequences, including incentives to assign a more severe diagnosis that would be covered at parity levels, rather than a less severe diagnosis that would not be covered at such levels. The lack of consumer knowledge about parity was widely acknowledged, and consumers in the focus groups requested additional information about parity.
Experiences in California suggest that implementation of the 2008 federal parity law should include monitoring health plan performance related to access and quality, in addition to monitoring coverage and costs; examining the breadth of diagnoses covered by health plans; and mounting a campaign to educate consumers about their insurance benefits.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>California</subject><subject>Consumer Behavior - economics</subject><subject>Consumer Behavior - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Consumer Health Information - economics</subject><subject>Consumer Health Information - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Cost Sharing - economics</subject><subject>Cost Sharing - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Eligibility Determination - economics</subject><subject>Eligibility Determination - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Focus Groups</subject><subject>Health Plan Implementation - economics</subject><subject>Health Plan Implementation - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Health Services Accessibility - economics</subject><subject>Health Services Accessibility - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Insurance Benefits - economics</subject><subject>Insurance Benefits - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Insurance Coverage - economics</subject><subject>Insurance Coverage - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Insurance, Psychiatric - economics</subject><subject>Insurance, Psychiatric - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Managed Care Programs - economics</subject><subject>Managed Care Programs - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Mental Disorders - diagnosis</subject><subject>Mental Disorders - economics</subject><subject>Mental Disorders - therapy</subject><subject>Mental health</subject><subject>Mental Health Services - economics</subject><subject>Mental Health Services - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Parity</subject><subject>Prevention. Health policy. Planification</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychopathology. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Quality Assurance, Health Care - economics</subject><subject>Quality Assurance, Health Care - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Social psychiatry. Ethnopsychiatry</subject><issn>1075-2730</issn><issn>1557-9700</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMFLwzAUxoMobk7_AQ9SBI_t8pImabyIDOcGEz3ouaRpih1tU5PusP_ejBV3k3d474Pfe9_jQ-gWcAIg-Lz3CcFYJjxokgDL5BmaAmMilgLj8zBjwWIiKJ6gK--3GGMQwC_RBKRkBFIxRU_rtm9Ma7pBDbXtIltFbwfRRCujmuE7-lCuHvaP0cZ4bzsfLZ1to4Vq6sq6rlbX6KJSjTc3Y5-hr-XL52IVb95f14vnTaxSgCEmlS64ppzoTFaZkQzrgmmqmdIp41DKjGeUGCgUhYKSUlCpUyJSWkpVEqrpDN0f7_bO_uyMH_Kt3bkuWOYEaChOWIDIEdLOeu9MlfeubpXb54DzQ2R5H_AQWc6DJvkhsrB0N17eFa0pTytjRgF4GAHltWoqpzpd-z-OEJCpxFng5kdO9X19eu8f61_awIGT</recordid><startdate>20091201</startdate><enddate>20091201</enddate><creator>Rosenbach, Margo L</creator><creator>Lake, Timothy K</creator><creator>Williams, Susan R</creator><creator>Buck, Jeffrey A</creator><general>American Psychiatric Association</general><general>American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20091201</creationdate><title>Implementation of Mental Health Parity: Lessons From California</title><author>Rosenbach, Margo L ; Lake, Timothy K ; Williams, Susan R ; Buck, Jeffrey A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a411t-2fcb6c362c89f8e950cb5c3c5ac4561d986832e1ba31b32d739c42743d9ad23c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>California</topic><topic>Consumer Behavior - economics</topic><topic>Consumer Behavior - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Consumer Health Information - economics</topic><topic>Consumer Health Information - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Cost Sharing - economics</topic><topic>Cost Sharing - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Eligibility Determination - economics</topic><topic>Eligibility Determination - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Focus Groups</topic><topic>Health Plan Implementation - economics</topic><topic>Health Plan Implementation - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Health Services Accessibility - economics</topic><topic>Health Services Accessibility - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Insurance Benefits - economics</topic><topic>Insurance Benefits - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Insurance Coverage - economics</topic><topic>Insurance Coverage - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Insurance, Psychiatric - economics</topic><topic>Insurance, Psychiatric - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Managed Care Programs - economics</topic><topic>Managed Care Programs - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Mental Disorders - diagnosis</topic><topic>Mental Disorders - economics</topic><topic>Mental Disorders - therapy</topic><topic>Mental health</topic><topic>Mental Health Services - economics</topic><topic>Mental Health Services - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Parity</topic><topic>Prevention. Health policy. Planification</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychopathology. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Quality Assurance, Health Care - economics</topic><topic>Quality Assurance, Health Care - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Social psychiatry. Ethnopsychiatry</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rosenbach, Margo L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lake, Timothy K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, Susan R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buck, Jeffrey A</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><jtitle>Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rosenbach, Margo L</au><au>Lake, Timothy K</au><au>Williams, Susan R</au><au>Buck, Jeffrey A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Implementation of Mental Health Parity: Lessons From California</atitle><jtitle>Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.)</jtitle><addtitle>Psychiatr Serv</addtitle><date>2009-12-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>60</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>1589</spage><epage>1594</epage><pages>1589-1594</pages><issn>1075-2730</issn><eissn>1557-9700</eissn><abstract>This article reports the experiences of health plans, providers, and consumers with California's mental health parity law and discusses implications for implementation of the 2008 federal parity law.
This study used a multimodal data collection approach to assess the first five years of California's parity implementation (from 2000 to 2005). Telephone interviews were conducted with 68 state-level stakeholders, and in-person interviews were conducted with 77 community-based stakeholders. Six focus groups included 52 providers, and six included 32 consumers. A semistructured interview protocol was used. Interview notes and transcripts were coded to facilitate analysis.
Health plans eliminated differential benefit limits and cost-sharing requirements for certain mental disorders to comply with the law, and they used managed care to control costs. In response to concerns about access to and quality of care, the state expanded oversight of health plans, issuing access-to-care regulations and conducting focused studies. California's parity law applied to a limited list of psychiatric diagnoses. Health plan executives said they spent considerable resources clarifying which diagnoses were covered at parity levels and concluded that the limited diagnosis list was unnecessary with managed care. Providers indicated that the diagnosis list had unintended consequences, including incentives to assign a more severe diagnosis that would be covered at parity levels, rather than a less severe diagnosis that would not be covered at such levels. The lack of consumer knowledge about parity was widely acknowledged, and consumers in the focus groups requested additional information about parity.
Experiences in California suggest that implementation of the 2008 federal parity law should include monitoring health plan performance related to access and quality, in addition to monitoring coverage and costs; examining the breadth of diagnoses covered by health plans; and mounting a campaign to educate consumers about their insurance benefits.</abstract><cop>Arlington, VA</cop><pub>American Psychiatric Association</pub><pmid>19952147</pmid><doi>10.1176/ps.2009.60.12.1589</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1075-2730 |
ispartof | Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.), 2009-12, Vol.60 (12), p.1589-1594 |
issn | 1075-2730 1557-9700 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_213131625 |
source | MEDLINE; American Psychiatric Publishing Journals (1997-Present); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
subjects | Biological and medical sciences California Consumer Behavior - economics Consumer Behavior - legislation & jurisprudence Consumer Health Information - economics Consumer Health Information - legislation & jurisprudence Cost Sharing - economics Cost Sharing - legislation & jurisprudence Eligibility Determination - economics Eligibility Determination - legislation & jurisprudence Focus Groups Health Plan Implementation - economics Health Plan Implementation - legislation & jurisprudence Health Services Accessibility - economics Health Services Accessibility - legislation & jurisprudence Humans Insurance Benefits - economics Insurance Benefits - legislation & jurisprudence Insurance Coverage - economics Insurance Coverage - legislation & jurisprudence Insurance, Psychiatric - economics Insurance, Psychiatric - legislation & jurisprudence Managed Care Programs - economics Managed Care Programs - legislation & jurisprudence Medical sciences Mental Disorders - diagnosis Mental Disorders - economics Mental Disorders - therapy Mental health Mental Health Services - economics Mental Health Services - legislation & jurisprudence Parity Prevention. Health policy. Planification Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry Psychopathology. Psychiatry Quality Assurance, Health Care - economics Quality Assurance, Health Care - legislation & jurisprudence Social psychiatry. Ethnopsychiatry |
title | Implementation of Mental Health Parity: Lessons From California |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T03%3A41%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Implementation%20of%20Mental%20Health%20Parity:%20Lessons%20From%20California&rft.jtitle=Psychiatric%20services%20(Washington,%20D.C.)&rft.au=Rosenbach,%20Margo%20L&rft.date=2009-12-01&rft.volume=60&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=1589&rft.epage=1594&rft.pages=1589-1594&rft.issn=1075-2730&rft.eissn=1557-9700&rft_id=info:doi/10.1176/ps.2009.60.12.1589&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1921563011%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=213131625&rft_id=info:pmid/19952147&rfr_iscdi=true |