Rachel Presskreischer, Colleen L Barry, Adria K Lawrence, Alexander McCourt, Ramin Mojtabai, Emma E McGinty
{"title":"影响州一级执行联邦精神健康平等和成瘾公平法案的因素:四个州的交叉案例分析。","authors":"Rachel Presskreischer, Colleen L Barry, Adria K Lawrence, Alexander McCourt, Ramin Mojtabai, Emma E McGinty","doi":"10.1215/03616878-10171062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) requires coverage for mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits to be no more restrictive than for medical/surgical benefits in commercial health plans. State insurance departments oversee enforcement for certain plans. Insufficient enforcement is one potential source of continued MH/SUD treatment gaps among commercial insurance enrollees. This study explored state-level factors that may drive enforcement variation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors conducted a four-state multiple-case study to explore factors influencing state insurance offices' enforcement of MHPAEA. They interviewed 21 individuals who represented state government offices, advocacy organizations, professional organizations, and a national insurer. Their analysis included a within-case content analysis and a cross-case framework analysis.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Common themes included insurance office relationships with other stakeholders, policy complexity, and political priority. Relationships between insurance offices and other stakeholders varied between states. MHPAEA complexity posed challenges for interpretation and application. Policy champions influenced enforcement via priorities of insurance commissioners, governors, and legislatures. Where enforcement of MHPAEA was not prioritized by any actors, there was minimal state enforcement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Within a state, enforcement of MHPAEA is influenced by insurance office relationships, legal interpretation, and political priorities. These unique state factors present significant challenges to uniform enforcement.</p>","PeriodicalId":54812,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","volume":"48 1","pages":"1-34"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9938503/pdf/nihms-1865998.pdf","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factors Affecting State-Level Enforcement of the Federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act: A Cross-Case Analysis of Four States.\",\"authors\":\"Rachel Presskreischer, Colleen L Barry, Adria K Lawrence, Alexander McCourt, Ramin Mojtabai, Emma E McGinty\",\"doi\":\"10.1215/03616878-10171062\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) requires coverage for mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits to be no more restrictive than for medical/surgical benefits in commercial health plans. State insurance departments oversee enforcement for certain plans. Insufficient enforcement is one potential source of continued MH/SUD treatment gaps among commercial insurance enrollees. This study explored state-level factors that may drive enforcement variation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors conducted a four-state multiple-case study to explore factors influencing state insurance offices' enforcement of MHPAEA. They interviewed 21 individuals who represented state government offices, advocacy organizations, professional organizations, and a national insurer. Their analysis included a within-case content analysis and a cross-case framework analysis.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Common themes included insurance office relationships with other stakeholders, policy complexity, and political priority. Relationships between insurance offices and other stakeholders varied between states. MHPAEA complexity posed challenges for interpretation and application. Policy champions influenced enforcement via priorities of insurance commissioners, governors, and legislatures. Where enforcement of MHPAEA was not prioritized by any actors, there was minimal state enforcement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Within a state, enforcement of MHPAEA is influenced by insurance office relationships, legal interpretation, and political priorities. These unique state factors present significant challenges to uniform enforcement.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54812,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"1-34\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9938503/pdf/nihms-1865998.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-10171062\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-10171062","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Factors Affecting State-Level Enforcement of the Federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act: A Cross-Case Analysis of Four States.
Context: The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) requires coverage for mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits to be no more restrictive than for medical/surgical benefits in commercial health plans. State insurance departments oversee enforcement for certain plans. Insufficient enforcement is one potential source of continued MH/SUD treatment gaps among commercial insurance enrollees. This study explored state-level factors that may drive enforcement variation.
Methods: The authors conducted a four-state multiple-case study to explore factors influencing state insurance offices' enforcement of MHPAEA. They interviewed 21 individuals who represented state government offices, advocacy organizations, professional organizations, and a national insurer. Their analysis included a within-case content analysis and a cross-case framework analysis.
Findings: Common themes included insurance office relationships with other stakeholders, policy complexity, and political priority. Relationships between insurance offices and other stakeholders varied between states. MHPAEA complexity posed challenges for interpretation and application. Policy champions influenced enforcement via priorities of insurance commissioners, governors, and legislatures. Where enforcement of MHPAEA was not prioritized by any actors, there was minimal state enforcement.
Conclusions: Within a state, enforcement of MHPAEA is influenced by insurance office relationships, legal interpretation, and political priorities. These unique state factors present significant challenges to uniform enforcement.
期刊介绍:
A leading journal in its field, and the primary source of communication across the many disciplines it serves, the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law focuses on the initiation, formulation, and implementation of health policy and analyzes the relations between government and health—past, present, and future.