ArticleJournal of substance abuse treatment2019
U.S. alcohol treatment admissions after the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act: Do state parity laws and race/ethnicity make a difference?
Article in Journal of substance abuse treatment, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe U.S. Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) was a landmark federal policy aimed at increasing access to substance use treatment, yet studies have found relatively weak impacts on treatment utilization. The present study considers whether there may be moderating effects of pre-existing state parity laws and differential changes in treatment rates across racial/ethnic groups.
methodsWe analyzed data from SAMHSA'S Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) from 1999 to 2013, assessing changes in alcohol treatment admission rates across states with heterogeneous, pre-existing parity laws. NIAAA's Alcohol Policy Information System data were used to code states into five groups based on the presence and strength of states' pre-MHPAEA mandates for insurance coverage of alcohol treatment and parity (weak; coverage no parity; partial parity if coverage offered; coverage and partial parity; strong). Regression models included state fixed effects and a cubic time trend adjusting for state- and year-level covariates, and assessed MHPAEA main effects and interactions with state parity laws in the overall sample and racial/ethnic subgroups.
resultsWhile we found no significant main effects of federal parity on alcohol treatment rates, there was a significantly greater increase in treatment rates in states requiring health plans to cover alcohol treatment and having some pre-existing parity. This was seen overall and in all three racial/ethnic groups (increasing by 25% in whites, 26% in blacks, and 42% in Hispanics above the expected treatment rate for these groups). Post-MHPAEA, the alcohol treatment admissions rate in these states rose to the level of states with the strongest pre-existing parity laws.
conclusionThe MHPAEA was associated with increased alcohol treatment rates for diverse racial/ethnic groups in states with both alcohol treatment coverage mandates and some prior parity protections. This suggests the importance of the local policy context in understanding early effects of the MHPAEA.
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.