The journal of mental health administration

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 96–118

A survey of state insurance mandates covering alcohol and other drug treatment

  • Jack E. Scott
  • David Greenberg
  • Josephine Pizarro


This article reports the results of a survey of health insurance mandate legislation for alcohol and other drug treatment in the 50 states through spring 1991. A total of 23 states (including the District of Columbia) requires insurance carriers to provide coverage for alcohol and other drug treatment. This paper compares the provisions in these states at the present time and contrasts these provisions with those in effect in 1981. The paper concludes with a discussion of the policy objectives states pursue through enactment of such legislation and the outcomes brought about by the mandates.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Social Insurance Plan of Bethlehem Steel Corporation v. Muir (819 F.2d 408 [3d Circuit, 1987]), and Michigan United Food and Commercial Workers Union v. Baerwaldt (767 F.2d 308 [6th Circuit, 1985]).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Butynski W: Status of State Legislation and Research on Health Insurance Coverage for Alcoholism Treatment. Washington DC: Science Management Corp., 1982.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Intergovernmental Health Policy Project: State laws mandating private health insurance benefits for mental health, alcoholism, and drug abuse.State Health Reports 1986; 20:1–24.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Levin BL: State mandates for mental health, alcohol, and substance abuse benefits: implications for HMOs.GHAA Journal 1988; 8(4):48–69.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goldman M, Muszynski PCState Requirements on Private Health Insurance Coverage for Alcoholism and/or Drug Dependency Treatment Services. Report prepared for the National Association of Addiction Treatment Providers (NAATP). Laguna Hills: NAATP, 1989.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Interdepartmental Committee on Mandated Health Insurance Benefits:Report of the Expert Panel on Mandated Drug and Alcohol Benefits. Baltimore: Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 1991.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism:National Drug and Alcoholism Treatment Unit Survey (NDATUS) 1989 Main Findings Report, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration. DHHS Publication No. (ADM)91-1729. Washington DC: Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Levit KR, Freeland MS, Waldo DR: Data watch: national health care spending trends: 1988.Health Affairs 1990; 9(2):171–184.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Institute of Medicine:Broadening the Base of Treatment for Alcohol Problems. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Institute of Medicine:Treating Drug Problems, Volume 1. A Study of the Evolution, Effectiveness, and Financing of Public and Private Drug Treatment Systems. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1990.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holder H, Hallan J:Development of cost simulation study of alcoholism insurance benefit packages. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, 1983.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Williams WG: Nature and scope of benefit packages in health insurance coverage for alcoholism.Alcohol Health and Research World 1981; 5(4):5–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Report of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ Task Force on Alcoholism, Drug Addiction, and Insurance. Washington DC: NAIC, 1981.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miller W, Hester R: Inpatient alcoholism treatment: who benefits?American Psychologist 1986; 41(7):794–805.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Walsh DC, Hingson RW, Merrigan DM, et al.: A randomized trial of treatment options for alcoholabusing workers.New England Journal of Medicine 1991; 325(11):775–782.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holder H, Longabaugh R, Miller WR, et al.: The cost effectiveness of treatment for alcoholism: a first approximation.Journal of Studies on Alcohol 1991; 52(6):517–540.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scandlen G: State mandated coverages: mandate evaluation laws.Issue Brief 4. Washington DC: Blue Cross and Blue Shield Office of Governmental Relations, 1989.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rice DP, Kelman S, Miller LS, et al.:The Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse and Mental Illness: 1985. Report submitted to the Office of Financing and Coverage Policy of the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA), US Department of Health and Human Services. San Francisco: Institute of Health and Aging, University of California, 1990.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jones KR, Vischi JR: Impact of alcohol and drug abuse and mental health treatment on medical care utilization: a review of the research literature.Medical Care 1979; 17(Supplement):1–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Holder HD, Hallan JB: Impact of alcoholism on total healthcare costs: a six-year study.Advances in Alcohol and Substance Abuse 1986; 6(1):1–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Holder HD: Alcoholism treatment and potential health care cost saving.Medical Care 1987; 25(1):52–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Corporation Against Drug Abuse and Arthur Andersen & Company:Small Employers’ Responses to Substance Abuse in the Workplace: A Survey of Washington DC Metropolitan Area Small Employers. Washington DC: Corporation Against Drug Abuse, 1991.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Larson MJ, Bowden ML, Horgan C: Private insurance for substance abuse services: a national overview.Addiction & Recovery 1991; 11(1):21–26.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Morrissey MA, Jensen GA: Employer-sponsored insurance coverage for alcoholism and drug abuse treatment.Journal of Studies on Alcohol 1988; 49(3):456–491.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    McAuliffe WE, Breer P, Ahmadifar NW, et al.: Assessment of drug abuser treatment needs in Rhode Island.American Journal of Public Health 1990; 81(3):365–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McAuliffe WE, Breer P, White N, et al.:A Drug Abuse Treatment and Prevention Plan for Rhode Island. Report prepared for the Rhode Island Department of Mental Health, Retardation, and Hospitals. Cambridge, MA: 1987.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gabel J, Jensen G: The price of state mandated benefits.Research Bulletin R1089. Washington DC: Health Insurance Association of America, 1990.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jensen GA, Gabel J: State mandated benefits and the small firm’s decision to self-insure. Working Paper. Washington DC: Health Insurance Association of America, 1989.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jensen G, Morrissey M: State insurance regulation and the decision to self-fund. Working Paper. Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago, 1989.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Goodman JC, Musgrave CL: Freedom of choice in health insurance.National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) Report 134. Dallas: National Center for Policy Analysis, 1988.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Governor’s Commission on Health Care Policy and Financing:Report of the Governor’s Commission on Health Care Policy and Financing, Volume 1, Baltimore, MD: Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, October 1990.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kronson ME: Substance abuse coverage provided by employer medical plansMonthly Labor Review 1991; 114(4):3–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Mental Health Administrators 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jack E. Scott
    • 1
  • David Greenberg
    • 2
    • 3
  • Josephine Pizarro
    • 3
  1. 1.Operations Research AnalystNational Institute of Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismRockville
  2. 2.University of Maryland-Baltimore County CampusUSA
  3. 3.LaFollette Institute of Public AffairsUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison CampusUSA

Personalised recommendations