The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×
Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.54.1.97

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to describe the physical and behavioral health benefits of a representative community-based sample of at-risk drinkers potentially in need of behavioral health services. METHODS: A screening instrument for at-risk drinking was administered by telephone to a random community sample of more than 12,000 adults. A telephone interview was conducted with the health plans of 294 at-risk drinkers who were insured and who consented to the release of their insurance records to collect information about supply-side cost-containment strategies (for example, gatekeeping and restrictions on choice of provider), and demand-side cost-containment strategies (for example, deductibles, limits, coinsurance, and copayments). Information about health plan characteristics was successfully collected for 217 (72 percent) of the insured at-risk drinkers, representing 113 different health plans and 206 different policies. RESULTS: Both provider choice restrictions and gatekeeping were more likely to be used for behavioral health care than for physical health care. Greater cost-sharing for mental health than for physical health was most often achieved by using additional limits (83 percent) and higher coinsurance (66 percent) and less often achieved by using higher copayments (38 percent) and additional deductibles (13 percent). The greater cost-sharing for behavioral health amounted to a 30 percent ($42) difference in annual out-of-pocket costs for an average user of behavioral health services compared with full parity. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide information to advocacy groups and policy makers about how much equalization would have to occur in the insurance market before full parity could be achieved between physical health and behavioral health benefits for a population of individuals potentially in need of behavioral health services.