Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, 180 Longwood Ave., Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Psychiatr Serv. 2011 Feb;62(2):129-34. doi: 10.1176/ps.62.2.pss6202_0129.
This study examined the impact of insurance parity on the use, cost, and quality of substance abuse treatment.
The authors compared substance abuse treatment spending and utilization from 1999 to 2002 for continuously enrolled beneficiaries covered by Federal Employees Health Benefit (FEHB) plans, which require parity coverage of mental health and substance use disorders, with spending and utilization among beneficiaries in a matched set of health plans without parity coverage. Logistic regression models estimated the probability of any substance abuse service use. Conditional on use, linear models estimated total and out-of-pocket spending. Logistic regression models for three quality indicators for substance abuse treatment were also estimated: identification of adult enrollees with a new substance abuse diagnosis, treatment initiation, and treatment engagement. Difference-in-difference estimates were computed as (postparity - preparity) differences in outcomes in plans without parity subtracted from those in FEHB plans.
There were no significant differences between FEHB and non-FEHB plans in rates of change in average utilization of substance abuse services. Conditional on service utilization, the rate of substance abuse treatment out-of-pocket spending declined significantly in the FEHB plans compared with the non-FEHB plans (mean difference=-$101.09, 95% confidence interval [CI]=-$198.06 to -$4.12), whereas changes in total plan spending per user did not differ significantly. With parity, more patients had new diagnoses of a substance use disorder (difference-in-difference risk=.10%, CI=.02% to .19%). No statistically significant differences were found for rates of initiation and engagement in substance abuse treatment.
Findings suggest that for continuously enrolled populations, providing parity of substance abuse treatment coverage improved insurance protection but had little impact on utilization, costs for plans, or quality of care.
本研究考察了保险均等对物质滥用治疗的使用、成本和质量的影响。
作者比较了 1999 年至 2002 年期间参加联邦雇员健康福利计划(FEHB)的连续参保受益人的物质滥用治疗支出和使用情况,该计划要求精神健康和物质使用障碍的覆盖范围均等,以及没有均等覆盖的健康计划中受益人的支出和使用情况。逻辑回归模型估计了任何物质滥用服务使用的概率。在使用条件下,线性模型估计了总支出和自付支出。还估计了物质滥用治疗三个质量指标的逻辑回归模型:识别新的物质滥用诊断的成年参保人、治疗开始和治疗参与。差异差异估计值是通过从 FEHB 计划中减去没有均等覆盖的计划中结果的(均等后-均等前)差异计算得出的。
在物质滥用服务平均利用率的变化率方面,FEHB 和非-FEHB 计划之间没有显著差异。在服务利用的条件下,FEHB 计划中物质滥用治疗自付支出的下降速度明显快于非-FEHB 计划(平均差异=-$101.09,95%置信区间[CI]=-$198.06 至 -$4.12),而每个用户的计划总支出变化没有显著差异。有了均等,更多的患者有新的物质使用障碍诊断(差异差异风险=.10%,CI=.02%至.19%)。在开始和参与物质滥用治疗的比率方面,没有发现统计学上的显著差异。
研究结果表明,对于连续参保人群,提供物质滥用治疗覆盖范围的均等提高了保险保障,但对利用率、计划成本或护理质量几乎没有影响。