ReviewHealth services research2006
State-mandated benefit review laws.
Review in Health services research, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global landscape of cranial prosthesis policies for medical hair loss: a narrative review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Translating medical effectiveness research into policy: lessons from the California Health Benefits Review Program.The Milbank quarterly · 2009Article
- Assessing the public health impact of state health benefit mandates.Health services research · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine which states have laws that require the review of mandated health insurance benefits and describe the various approaches states take in reviewing mandated benefits, as stated in the mandated benefit review (MBR) laws. DATA SOURCES: We queried online databases of the individual state statutes and reviewed the state statutes and state legislative agendas for all 50 states and Washington, DC to identify those states with active MBR laws as of September 2004. STUDY
designWe reviewed the identified MBR laws to catalog their various components. The components chosen for this analysis include: general review strategy, designated reviewers, time frame for conducting reviews, criteria used in the review, requirements to use actuaries, sources of funding, and state data collection systems. Two of the authors independently created analysis categories and coded the MBR laws to document details on the major components of the laws. PRINCIPAL
findingsWe identified 26 state MBR laws active as of September 2004. A majority of the MBR laws specified a prospective review approach and only one law used an exclusively retrospective review approach. A substantial amount of variation was found with regards to the designated reviewers, time frames for conducting reviews, and criteria used in the review. Few states specified the use of actuaries, sources of funding, and state data collection systems.
conclusionsThe number of states that have enacted MBR laws has increased substantially in recent years, however, different states have structured the review of mandated benefits differently, according to the values and perceived needs of the state legislatures. It is important that states increasingly consider a broader scope of review criteria so state decision makers can position themselves to mandate only those benefits that add real value to the state's health care system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.