Thomas Kathleen C., Snowden Lonnie R.
Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 725 Airport Road, CB#7590, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7590, USA, Tel. +1 (919) 966-3387, Fax +1 (919) 966-5764,
J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2001 Mar 1;4(1):35-41.
To promote access to mental health services, policy makers have focused on expanding the availability of insurance and the generosity of mental health benefits. Ethnic minority populations are high priority targets for outreach. However, among persons with private insurance, minorities are less likely than whites to seek outpatient mental health treatment. Among those with Medicaid coverage, minorities continue to be less likely than whites to use services. AIMS OF THE STUDY: The present study sought to determine if public insurance is as effective in promoting outpatient mental healthtreatment as private coverage for ethnic minority groups. METHODS: The analysis uses data from the 1987 National Medical Expenditure Survey to model mental health expenditures as a function of minority status and private insurance coverage. An interaction term between the two highlights any differences in response to private and public insurance coverage. The analysis uses a two stage least squares method to account for endogeneity of insurance coverage in the model. RESULTS: Minorities are less responsive to private insurance than whites in two ways. First, minorities are less responsive to private insurance than to public insurance whereas whites do not show this difference. Second, minorities are less responsive to private insurance than whites are to private insurance. DISCUSSION: Results suggest that there is a difference in the effectiveness of public and private health insurance to encourage use of mental health services. Among minorities but not among whites, those with private coverage used fewer mental health services than those with public coverage. Minorities were not only less responsive to private insurance than public insurance, but among those who were privately insured, minorities used fewer mental health services than whites. These results imply that insurance may not be as effective a mechanism as hoped to encourage self-initiated treatment seeking particularly among minority and other low income populations. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE: These results suggest that increasing private insurance coverage to minority populations will not eliminate racial and ethnic gaps in professional help-seeking for outpatient mental health care. Although the total number of people receiving treatment might increase, these results suggest that whites would seek care in greater numbers than minorities and the size of the minority-white differential might grow. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Areas for further research include the impacts of alternative definitions of mental health services, the dynamics of the substitution of inpatient for outpatient mental health care, elucidation of nonfinancial barriers to care for minorities, and determinants of timely help-seeking among minorities.
为促进获得心理健康服务,政策制定者一直专注于扩大保险覆盖面以及提高心理健康福利的慷慨程度。少数族裔人群是推广服务的重点目标。然而,在拥有私人保险的人群中,少数族裔寻求门诊心理健康治疗的可能性低于白人。在有医疗补助覆盖的人群中,少数族裔使用服务的可能性仍然低于白人。
本研究旨在确定对于少数族裔群体而言,公共保险在促进门诊心理健康治疗方面是否与私人保险同样有效。
该分析使用了1987年全国医疗支出调查的数据,将心理健康支出建模为少数族裔身份和私人保险覆盖情况的函数。两者之间的交互项突出了对私人保险和公共保险覆盖的反应差异。该分析使用两阶段最小二乘法来处理模型中保险覆盖的内生性问题。
少数族裔在两个方面对私人保险的反应不如白人。第一,少数族裔对私人保险的反应不如对公共保险的反应,而白人没有这种差异。第二,少数族裔对私人保险的反应不如白人对私人保险的反应。
结果表明,公共和私人医疗保险在鼓励使用心理健康服务方面的效果存在差异。在少数族裔中而非白人中,拥有私人保险的人比拥有公共保险的人使用的心理健康服务更少。少数族裔不仅对私人保险的反应不如对公共保险的反应,而且在那些拥有私人保险的人中,少数族裔使用的心理健康服务比白人少。这些结果意味着,保险可能不像预期的那样是一种有效的机制,无法鼓励特别是少数族裔和其他低收入人群主动寻求治疗。
这些结果表明,增加少数族裔人群的私人保险覆盖不会消除门诊心理健康护理中在寻求专业帮助方面的种族和族裔差距。虽然接受治疗的总人数可能会增加,但这些结果表明,白人寻求护理的人数会比少数族裔更多,少数族裔与白人之间的差距可能会扩大。
进一步研究的领域包括心理健康服务替代定义的影响、住院心理健康护理替代门诊心理健康护理的动态变化、阐明少数族裔获得护理的非财务障碍以及少数族裔及时寻求帮助的决定因素。