Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Benefit Limits for Behavioral Health Care in Private Health Plans

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Data from a nationally representative sample of private health plans reveal that special lifetime limits on behavioral health care are rare (used by 16% of products). However, most plans have special annual limits on behavioral health utilization; for example, 90% limit outpatient mental health and 93% limit outpatient substance abuse treatment. As a result, enrollees in the average plan face substantial out-of-pocket costs for long-lasting treatment: a median of $2,710 for 50 mental health visits, or $2,400 for 50 substance abuse visits. Plans’ access to new managed care tools has not led them to stop using benefit limits for cost containment purposes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2008). Medical expenditure panel survey. Retrieved July 17, 2008, from http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/.

  • Barry, C. L., Frank, R. G., & McGuire, T. G. (2006). The costs of mental health parity: Still an impediment? Health Affairs, 25(3), 623–634. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.25.3.623.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, C. L., Gabel, J. R., Frank, R. G., et al. (2003). Design of mental health benefits: Still unequal after all these years. Health Affairs Sep-Oct, 22(5), 127–137. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.22.5.127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, C. L., & Sindelar, J. L. (2007). Equity in private insurance coverage for substance abuse: A perspective on parity. Health Affairs. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.26.6w706.

  • Buchmueller, T. C., Cooper, P. F., Jacobson, M., & Zuvekas, S. (2007). Parity for whom? Exemptions and the extent of state mental health parity legislation. Health Affairs, 483–487. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.26.4.w483.

  • Daly, R. (2006). Law opens MCO panels to `any willing provider’. Psychiatric News, 41(13), 10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, R. G., & McGuire, T. G.(2003). Economics and mental health. In A. J. Culyer & J. P. Newhouse (Eds.), Handbook of health economics.

  • Gabel, J., Claxton, G., Gil, I., et al. (2005). Health benefits in 2005: Premium increases slow down, coverage continues to Erode. Health Affairs, 24(5), 1273–1280. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.24.5.1273.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, J. R., Whitmore, H., Pickreign, J. D., et al. (2007). Substance abuse benefits: Still limited after all these years. Health Affairs, 26(4), w474–w482. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.26.4.w474.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gitterman, D. P., Sturm, R., Pacula, R. L., & Scheffler, R. M. (2001). Does the sunset of mental health parity really matter? Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 28(5), 353–369. doi:10.1023/A:1011113932599.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, H. H., Frank, R. G., Burnam, M. A., et al. (2006). Behavioral health insurance parity for federal employees. The New England Journal of Medicine, 354(13), 1378–1386. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa053737.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgkin, D., Horgan, C. M., Garnick, D. W., Merrick, E. L., & Volpe-Vartanian, J. (2007). Management of access to branded psychotropic medications in private health plans. Clinical Therapeutics, 29, 371–380. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2007.02.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Horgan, C. M., Garnick, D. W., Merrick, E. L., & Hodgkin, D. (in press, forthcoming). Changes in how health plans provide behavioral health services. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research.

  • Huskamp, H. A. (2005). Pharmaceutical cost management and access to psychotropic drugs: The US context. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 28(5), 484–495. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2005.08.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser Family Foundation. (2004). Employer health benefits: 2004 annual survey. California: Menlo Park.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemper, P., Blumenthal, D., Corrigan, J. M., et al. (1996). The design of the community tracking study: A longitudinal study of health system change and its effects on people, Inquiry. Summer, 33(2), 195–206.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kronenfeld, J. J. (2003). Organizational variation in the managed care industry in the 1990s: Implications for institutional change. In D. Anthony & J. Banaszak-Holl (Eds.), Reorganizing health care delivery systems: Problems of managed care and other models of health care delivery. Emerald Group Publishing.

  • LoSasso, A. T., & Lyons, J. S. (2004). The sensitivity of substance abuse treatment intensity to co-payment levels. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 31(1), 50–65. doi:10.1007/BF02287338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mark, T. L., Levit, K. R., Buck, J. A., et al. (2007a). Mental health treatment expenditure trends, 1986–2003. Psychiatric Services (Washington, D.C.), 58(8), 1041–1048. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.58.8.1041.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mark, T. L., Levit, K. R., Vandivort-Warren, R., et al. (2007b). Trends in spending for substance abuse treatment, 1986–2003. Health Affairs, 26(4), 1118–1128. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.26.4.1118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. K., Pescosolido, B. A., & Tuch, S. A. (2000). Of fear and loathing: The role of ‘disturbing behavior’, labels, and causal attributions in shaping public attitudes toward persons with mental illness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41(2), 208–223. doi:10.2307/2676306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKusick, D. R., Mark, T. L., King, E. C., Coffey, R. M., & Genuardi, J. (2002). Trends in mental health insurance benefits and out-of-pocket spending. The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics, 5(2), 71–78.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Merrick, E. L., Horgan, C. M., Garnick, D. W., & Hodgkin, D. (2006). Managed care organizations’ use of treatment management strategies for outpatient mental health care. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 33(1), 104–114. doi:10.1007/s10488-005-0024-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act. Pub. L. No. 110-343, 122 Stat. 3765 (2008).

  • Peele, P. B., Lave, J. R., & Xu, Y. (1999). Benefit limits in managed behavioral health care: Do they matter? The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 26(4), 430–441. doi:10.1007/BF02287303.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Research Triangle Institute. (2002). SUDAAN user’s manual: Release 8.0. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.

  • Ringel, J. S., & Sturm, R. (2001). Financial burden and out-of-pocket expenditures for mental health across different socioeconomic groups: Results from healthcare for communities. The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics, 4(3), 141–150.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sturm, R. (1997). How expensive is unlimited mental health care coverage under managed care? Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(18), 1533–1537. doi:10.1001/jama.278.18.1533.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sturm, R., & McCulloch, J. (1998). Mental health and substance abuse benefits in carve-out plans and the Mental health parity act of 1996. Journal of Health Care Finance, 24(3), 82–92.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sturm, R., Zhang, W., & Schoenbaum, M. J. (1999). How expensive are unlimited substance abuse benefits under managed care? The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 26(2), 203–210. doi:10.1007/BF02287491.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2007). Results from the 2006 national survey on drug use and health: National findings. NSDUH Series H-32, DHHS Publication No. SMA 07-4293. Rockville, MD.

  • US Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2007). National compensation survey: Employee benefits in private industry in the United States, 2005. Bulletin, 2589.

  • Wang, P. S., Lane, M., Olfson, M., Pincus, H. A., Wells, K. B., & Kessler, R. C. (2005). Twelve-month use of mental health services in the United States: Results from the national comorbidity survey replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(6), 629–640. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.629.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zuvekas, S. H. (2005). Prescription drugs and the changing patterns of treatment for mental disorders, 1996–2001. Health Affairs, 24(1), 195–205. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.24.1.195.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zuvekas, S. H., Banthin, J. S., & Selden, T. M. (1998). Mental health parity: What are the gaps in coverage? The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics, 1(3), 135–146. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-176X(1998100)1:3<135::AID-MHP17>3.0.CO;2-S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zuvekas, S. H., & Meyerhoefer, C. D. (2006). Coverage for mental health treatment: Do the gaps still persist? The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics, 9(3), 155–163.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (grant R01 AA 010869) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (grant R01 DA10915), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. The authors thank respondents from the participating health plans for their time; Frank Potter and the staff at Mathematica Policy Research, for fielding the survey; Galina Zolotusky for programming assistance; and Grant Ritter, Sharon Reif and Joanna Volpe-Vartanian for helpful discussions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dominic Hodgkin.

Appendix

Appendix

The study was linked to the Community Tracking Study (CTS), a longitudinal study of health system change funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Kemper et al. 1996). At the first stage, the primary sampling units were the 60 market areas the CTS had selected to be nationally representative. The CTS study defined market areas based on Metropolitan Statistical Areas (for metropolitan communities) or Bureau of Economic Analysis Economic Areas (for non-metropolitan communities). The second stage of our sampling consisted of selecting plans within market areas. Plans serving multiple markets were defined as separate plans for the study and data were collected with reference to the specific market.

The 1999 sample frame was based on a CTS household survey that used responses to identify and survey insurers and health plans regarding plan characteristics. This survey yielded around 1000 entities categorized as health plans. After excluding entities that were exclusively indemnity plans and those no longer present within market areas, 944 plans constituted our sample frame, from which 720 market-specific plans were selected with equal probability and without replacement across the sites. The plan sample was allocated to each market area based on the weighted estimate of plan enrollees in each site, with proportional distribution between preferred-provider organization (PPO)-only and health maintenance organization (HMO)/multitype plans. Of the 720 sampled plans, 247 were deemed ineligible because they had closed, merged or were otherwise unreachable, had fewer than 300 subscribers in the market, did not offer comprehensive health care products, or served only Medicaid/Medicare. This left 473 eligible plans, of which 434 (92%) responded, regarding 787 eligible insurance products.

For the 2003 survey, we augmented the 1999 sample of 720 plans with a national sample of plans not previously operating in the market areas. Of the 110 new plans identified, we selected 94, maintaining the same sampling rates as those in 1999. Thus, the 2003 sample frame consisted of 1054 plans, and the sample totaled 814 plans including all 1999 eligible sampled cases plus a sample of 1999 ineligibles and new plans. Of these 814 plans, 373 were ineligible, leaving 441 eligible plans, of which 368 (83%) responded and reported on 812 products. Four products that were “consumer driven” (a new category in 2003), were excluded from analyses. Data used in this study were from the 2003 survey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hodgkin, D., Horgan, C.M., Garnick, D.W. et al. Benefit Limits for Behavioral Health Care in Private Health Plans. Adm Policy Ment Health 36, 15–23 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-008-0196-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-008-0196-5

Keywords

Navigation