Barry Colleen L, Busch Susan H
Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.
J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2008 Jun;11(2):57-66.
High prevalence rates of mental health disorders in childhood have garnered increased public attention in recent years. Yet, among children diagnosed with serious mental health problems, a majority receive no treatment. Improving access to mental health services for children with behavioral and emotional disorders constitutes an important policy concern.
To study whether living in a state that has implemented a mental health parity law affects a child's use of outpatient mental health services.
We use the National Survey of America's Families (NSAF) 1997 to 2002 to study whether enacting a state parity law increases the probability that a privately insured child receives mental health treatment (N=26,916). Using a differences-in-differences model, we control for detailed information on a child's health and functioning, and compare mental health care use before and after state parity implementation with non-parity states serving as a comparison group.
Regression results indicate that state parity laws do not affect the likelihood of a child receiving outpatient mental health services. Among the subset of children identified with a greater need for mental health care, the effect of parity appears to be somewhat larger in magnitude but remains insignificant.
State mental health parity policies aim to improve equity in private insurance coverage for mental health care and could provide a mechanism for reducing unmet need among children with mental health care disorders. Yet, our results suggest these policies do little to affect rates of use. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND UTILIZATION: Parity policies do not appear to represent a sufficient strategy for addressing access to mental health care among children and adolescents.
Developing new approaches to encourage the receipt of high value mental health care in youth constitutes a persisting challenge under both public and private insurance arrangements.
Since other research has shown that state parity laws are helpful in reducing the family financial burden of caring for a mentally ill child and do not drive up total health care costs, these policies serve a vital function. However, given persistent access problems in the child population, research aimed at increasing rates of mental health services use is needed. In addition, future research on parity laws should consider whether, conditional on having a visit, children in parity states are likely to have more visits compared with other children.
近年来,儿童心理健康障碍的高患病率引起了公众越来越多的关注。然而,在被诊断患有严重心理健康问题的儿童中,大多数没有接受治疗。改善行为和情绪障碍儿童获得心理健康服务的机会是一项重要的政策关注点。
研究生活在实施了心理健康平价法的州是否会影响儿童使用门诊心理健康服务。
我们使用1997年至2002年的美国全国家庭调查(NSAF)来研究颁布州平价法是否会增加参加私人保险的儿童接受心理健康治疗的可能性(N = 26,916)。使用差异-in-差异模型,我们控制了有关儿童健康和功能的详细信息,并将州平价法实施前后的心理健康护理使用情况与作为对照组的非平价州进行比较。
回归结果表明,州平价法不会影响儿童接受门诊心理健康服务的可能性。在确定对心理健康护理有更大需求的儿童子集中,平价法的影响似乎在程度上稍大一些,但仍然不显著。
州心理健康平价政策旨在改善私人保险对心理健康护理的覆盖公平性,并可能提供一种机制来减少心理健康护理障碍儿童中未满足的需求。然而,我们的结果表明这些政策对使用率几乎没有影响。对医疗保健提供和利用的影响:平价政策似乎不是解决儿童和青少年获得心理健康护理问题的充分策略。
在公共和私人保险安排下,开发鼓励青少年接受高价值心理健康护理的新方法仍然是一项持续的挑战。
由于其他研究表明州平价法有助于减轻照顾患有精神疾病儿童的家庭经济负担,并且不会推高总体医疗保健成本,这些政策发挥着至关重要的作用。然而,鉴于儿童群体中持续存在的获得服务问题,需要开展旨在提高心理健康服务使用率的研究。此外,未来关于平价法的研究应考虑,在进行就诊的条件下,平价州的儿童与其他儿童相比是否可能有更多次就诊。