Sturm R, McCulloch J
RAND, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
J Health Care Finance. 1998 Spring;24(3):82-92.
Legislation passed in the fall of 1996 required employers and insurers offering mental health benefits to raise dollar coverage limits on mental health services to the level of medical services. We analyze the benefit designs of 4,000 current behavioral health carve-out plans and contrast them to medical benefits. We find that almost 90 percent of all plans are inconsistent with the current legislation and need to be rewritten in the coming year. The restructuring of designs required by the Parity Act provides a unique opportunity because plans often are inconsistent and unnecessarily complex, a legacy of past attempts by employers to contain costs and control adverse selection and moral hazard in an unmanaged fee-for-service environment. Under managed care, the need for deductibles, limits, or other demand-side cost-sharing mechanisms may have diminished and restructuring outdated designs could benefit both enrollees and employers.
1996年秋季通过的立法要求提供心理健康福利的雇主和保险公司将心理健康服务的美元覆盖限额提高到医疗服务的水平。我们分析了4000个当前行为健康单独承保计划的福利设计,并将它们与医疗福利进行对比。我们发现,几乎所有计划的90%都与现行立法不一致,需要在来年进行修订。《平价法案》要求的设计重组提供了一个独特的机会,因为计划往往不一致且不必要地复杂,这是雇主过去在无管理的按服务收费环境中控制成本、控制逆向选择和道德风险的遗留问题。在管理式医疗下,免赔额、限额或其他需求方成本分摊机制的必要性可能已经降低,重组过时的设计可能会使参保人和雇主都受益。