Mathematica Policy Research, 955 Massachusetts Ave., Suite 801, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
Psychiatr Serv. 2009 Dec;60(12):1589-94. doi: 10.1176/ps.2009.60.12.1589.
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.
本文报告了加州心理健康平权法实施五年来健康计划、提供者和消费者的经验,并讨论了对 2008 年联邦平权法实施的影响。
本研究采用多模态数据收集方法评估了加州平权法实施的头五年(2000 年至 2005 年)。对 68 名州一级利益相关者进行了电话访谈,对 77 名社区利益相关者进行了实地访谈。六个焦点小组包括 52 名提供者,六个焦点小组包括 32 名消费者。使用半结构化访谈协议。使用访谈笔记和转录本进行编码以促进分析。
为了遵守法律,健康计划取消了某些精神障碍的差别福利限制和自付费用要求,并采用管理式医疗来控制成本。为了回应对获得医疗保健服务和护理质量的关注,该州扩大了对健康计划的监督,发布了获得医疗保健服务的法规,并进行了重点研究。加州的平权法适用于有限的精神科诊断列表。健康计划高管表示,他们花费了大量资源来澄清哪些诊断符合平权水平,并得出结论认为,管理式医疗不需要有限的诊断列表。提供者表示,诊断列表产生了意想不到的后果,包括激励分配更严重的诊断,该诊断将按平权水平支付,而不是分配不太严重的诊断,该诊断不会按平权水平支付。消费者对平权缺乏了解,这一点得到了广泛认可,焦点小组的消费者要求获得更多关于平权的信息。
加州的经验表明,2008 年联邦平权法的实施除了监测覆盖范围和成本外,还应包括监测健康计划在获得和质量方面的表现;检查健康计划涵盖的诊断范围;开展宣传活动,教育消费者了解他们的保险福利。