Dataset Information

Carve-out plan financial requirements associated with national behavioral health parity.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To examine changes in carve-out financial requirements (copayments, coinsurance, use of deductibles, and out-of-pocket maxima) following the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA).

Data source/study setting

Specialty mental health benefit design information for employer-sponsored carve-out plans from a national managed behavioral health organization's claims processing engine (2008-2013).

Study design

This pre-post study reports linear and logistic regression as the main analysis.

Data collection/extraction methods

NA.

Principal findings

Copayments for in-network emergency room (-$44.9, 95% CI: -78.3, -11.5; preparity mean: $56.2), outpatient services (eg, individual psychotherapy: -$7.4, 95% CI: -10.5, -4.2; preparity mean: $17.8), and out-of-network coinsurance for emergency room (-11 percentage points, 95% CI: -16.7, -5.4; preparity mean: 38.8 percent) and outpatient (eg, individual psychotherapy: -5.8 percentage points, 95% CI: -10.0, -1.6; preparity mean 41.0 percent) decreased. Probability of family OOP maxima use (29 percentage points, 95% CI: 19.3, 38.6; preparity mean: 36 percent) increased. In-network outpatient coinsurance increased (eg, individual psychotherapy: 4.5 percentage points, 95% CI: 1.1, 7.9; preparity mean: 2.7 percent), as did probability of use of family deductibles (15 percentage points, 95% CI: 6.1, 23.3; preparity mean: 38 percent).

Conclusions

MHPAEA was associated with increased generosity in most financial requirements observed here. However, increased use of deductibles may have reduced generosity for some patients.

SUBMITTER: Friedman S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7704471 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceIn 2020, Michigan Medicaid implemented a new work requirement policy for enrollees in the Healthy Michigan Plan (HMP), the state's expanded Medicaid program. Under the policy, enrollees would be required to report 80 hours of work or other qualifying activities each month or obtain an exemption to maintain health insurance coverage.ObjectiveTo assess the experiences of health navigators (and beneficiaries by proxy) with the implementation of Michigan's Medicaid work requirement.Design setting and participantsThis qualitative study included health navigators who participated in 11 focus groups from September to December 2020. Focus group questions addressed topics related to implementation and communication of the HMP work requirement policy. A survey was administered to capture background information, assess readiness to assist with navigation, and assess the quality of the state's communication about the policy.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were general understanding of policy components, communications about the policy, navigation of the exemption process, navigation of the reporting process, and beneficiaries' ability to comply with the policy.ResultsOf 50 health navigators who participated in the focus groups, 44 (88.0%) responded to the survey and 43 provided demographic information (mean [SD] age, 44.0 [10.5] years). All 43 had at least some college or vocational education, with 27 (62.8%) reporting a 4-year degree or higher, and they resided in geographic regions across Michigan. Navigators indicated that they felt prepared to assist HMP enrollees navigate work requirements. Communication to beneficiaries regarding the new policy was viewed as an improvement compared with traditional Medicaid communications. However, the complex policy was potentially difficult for beneficiaries to understand. Limited language options besides English created barriers for some enrollees. Exemptions were confusing for beneficiaries owing to the numerous categories and sometimes vague guidelines. Those who used the online reporting system generally found the platform to be user-friendly. Navigators expressed concern regarding HMP enrollees' ability to report compliance with work requirements owing to barriers with internet access, telephone access, language challenges, and computer literacy.Conclusions and relevanceIn this qualitative analysis of health navigators in Michigan, respondents reported overall positive feedback about many of the implementation and communication strategies, including human-centered design, automatic exemptions, and use of state administrative data to assess whether beneficiaries were in compliance with the policy; however, barriers to reporting remained for enrollees. The findings suggest that state agencies should seek to reduce administrative barriers and apply a human-centered design approach to alleviate risk of unnecessary loss of Medicaid benefits.

Project description:A central pillar of universal health coverage (UHC) is to achieve financial protection from catastrophic health expenditure. There are concerns, however, that national health insurance programmes with premiums may not benefit impoverished groups. In 2003, Ghana became the first sub-Saharan African country to introduce a National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) with progressively structured premium charges. In this study, we test the impact of being insured on utilization and financial risk protection compared with no enrolment, using the 2012-13 Ghana Living Standards Survey (n?=?72 372). Consistent with previous studies, we observed that participating in health insurance significantly decreased the probability of unmet medical needs by 15 percentage points (p.p.) and that of incurring catastrophic out-of-pocket (OOP) health payments by 7 p.p. relative to no enrolment in the NHIS. Households living outside a 1-h radius to the nearest hospital had lower reductions in financial risk from excess OOP medical spending relative to households living closer (-5 p.p. vs -9 p.p.). We also find evidence that in Ghana, the scheme was highly pro-poor. Once insured, the poorest 40% of households experienced significantly larger improvements in medical utilization (18 p.p. vs. 8 p.p.) and substantively larger reductions in catastrophic OOP health expenditure (-10 p.p. vs. -6 p.p.) compared with that of the richest households. However, health insurance did not benefit vulnerable persons equally from financial risk. Once insured, poor, low-educated and self-employed households living far from hospitals had significantly lower reductions in catastrophic OOP medical spending compared with their counterparts living closer. Taken together, we show that enrolment in the NHIS is associated with improved financial protection but less so among geographically remote vulnerable groups. Efforts to boost not just insurance uptake but also health service delivery may be needed as a supplement for insurance schemes to accelerate progress towards UHC.

Project description:BackgroundThe requirements of the health policy and services journals for authors to report their financial and non-financial conflicts of interest (COI) are unclear. The present article aims to assess the requirements of health policy and services journals for authors to disclose their financial and non-financial COIs.MethodsThis is a cross-sectional study of journals listed by the Web of Science under the category of 'Health Policy and Services'. We reviewed the 'Instructions for Authors' on the journals' websites and then simulated the submission of a manuscript to obtain any additional relevant information made available during that step. We abstracted data in duplicate and independently using a standardised form.ResultsOut of 72 eligible journals, 67 (93%) had a COI policy. A minority of policies described how the disclosed COIs of authors would impact the editorial process (34%). None of the policies had clear-cut criteria for rejection based on the content of the disclosure. Approximately a fifth of policies (21%) explicitly stated that inaccurate or incomplete disclosures might lead to manuscript rejection or retraction. No policy described whether the journal would verify the accuracy or completeness of authors' disclosed COIs. Most journals' policies (93%) required the disclosure of at least one form of financial COI. While the majority asked for specification of source of payment (71%), a minority asked for the amount (18%). Overall, 81% of policies explicitly required disclosure of non-financial COIs.ConclusionA majority of health policy and services journal policies required the disclosure of authors' financial and non-financial COIs, but few required details on disclosed COIs. Health policy journals should provide specific definitions and instructions for disclosing non-financial COIs. A framework providing clear typology and operational definitions of the different types of COIs will facilitate both their disclosure by authors and reviewers and their assessment and management by the editorial team and the readers.