ArticleThe journal of behavioral health services & research2025
System Effects of Mental Health Agency Expenditures and Mental Health Parity Legislation at the State Level.
Article in The journal of behavioral health services & research, 2025. 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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The escalating mental health crisis in the USA has left over fifty percent of adults with a mental illness without mental health services. Federal mental health parity legislation addresses financial barriers to mental healthcare by requiring that insurance coverage for mental health services is equivalent to coverage for other medical services. Using data from the top ten and bottom ten states ranked by per capita State Mental Health Agency expenditures, this paper examines the impact of parity implementation and enforcement on three system-level access to care measures: (1) mental health workforce availability, (2) percent of state population living in a mental health shortage area, and (3) percent of total health expenditure spent on mental health by state agencies. As hypothesized, the top ten states had more comprehensive parity implementation and enforcement and a larger allocation of total health expenditures to mental health (p = 0.0002). The other two measures did not show a significant difference but trended in the direction of greater workforce availability (p = 0.11) and fewer residents living in mental health provider shortage areas (p = 0.054) among the top ten states compared to the bottom ten states. Using the scope of mental health parity alone, all three access-to-care measures were significantly better among states with comprehensive parity compared to states without comprehensive parity. These findings highlight the critical roles of financial investment, policy prioritization, and enhanced mental health infrastructure in addressing access to mental healthcare.
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.