Assessment of Perceptions of Mental Health vs Medical Health Plan Networks Among US Adults With Private Insurance

Abstract

IMPORTANCE Ten years after the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, patients continue to report insurance-related barriers to specialty mental health care.OBJECTIVES To assess privately insured patients' perceptions of the adequacy of their health plan's provider network (provider network includes physicians, clinicians, other health care professionals, and their institutions that constitute the network), whether practitioners frequently leave plans, and whether practitioner plan participation affected patients' plan choice. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA nationally representative, population-based internet survey study of English-speaking US adults participating in KnowledgePanel, an online research panel, was conducted from August to September 2018. Data analysis was performed from November 12, 2020, to May 12, 2021. From a sample of 29 854 panelists aged 18 to 64 years, 19 602 initiated the screener (completion rate of 66%), and 728 met study criteria: adults with private insurance receiving both specialty mental health and medical care in the past year.EXPOSURE Health plan's provider network. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESSelf-report of plan inadequacy, whether a practitioner left the plan and the participant's responses (stopped treatment, switched practitioner, or continued treatment), and whether participation of a specific practitioner was considered when a health plan was chosen. Experiences with both mental health and medical provider networks were assessed.Analyses were weighted to match the sample to the US population. Weights provided by KnowledgePanel were also adjusted for panel recruitment, attrition, oversampling, and survey nonresponse. RESULTSOf a total of 728 study participants, 204 (39%) were aged 18 to 34 years, 504 (61%) were women, 82 (17%) were Hispanic, and 551 (66%) were non-Hispanic White individuals. Serious psychological distress was reported by 262 participants (36%), and 214 participants (29%) also received mental health treatment from a primary care practitioner. Participants rated their mental health provider network as inadequate more frequently than their medical provider network ( 163[21%] vs 70 [10%]; odds ratio [OR], 2.69; 95% CI, 1.64-4.40; P < .001). However, among the 193 participants also receiving mental health treatment from a primary care practitioner, there was no significant difference in the ratings of mental health and medical provider networks (44 [14%] vs 18[9%]; OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.65-3.67; P = .32). Sixty participants (8%) reported that a mental health practitioner had left their plan's insurance network in the past 3 years. Of the 523 participants with a choice of plan, 98 (20%) considered whether a specific mental health practitioner was in network before choosing a plan. (continued) Key Points Question How do patient perceptions of mental health networks differ from perceptions of medical networks? Findings In this survey study of 728 US adults with private insurance receiving both specialty mental health and medical care, participants were signif...

Accessible Mental Health Care Is Available, Approachable, and Affordable

“…Often, they must go out-of-network, incurring higher health care costs. In a survey of adults with private insurance who have both mental health and medical health plan networks, the investigators reported that participants tended to rate their mental health networks as less adequate compared with their medical health plan networks (Busch & Kyanko, 2021). The inequities of affordable health care are made more prominent when considering socioeconomic and demographic disparities in who may readily access high-quality mental health care and who may not (Cook et al, 2018).…”

Incorrect Grant Number in Funding/Support

“…In the Original Investigation titled “Assessment of Perceptions of Mental Health vs Medical Health Plan Networks Among US Adults With Private Insurance,” 1 published October 22, 2021, an incorrect grant number appeared in the Funding/Support entry of the Article Information section. The grant number should have been given as R21MH109783.…”