ArticlePLOS mental health2025
Impact of insurance type on outpatient mental health treatment of US adults.
Article in PLOS mental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The mental health treatment gap in the US continues to be a major public health challenge. Even individuals with health insurance face substantial barriers to care, including high costs, insufficient coverage and inaccurate provider directories. Policies to address the treatment gap require updated population-based information about whether treatment rates vary by type of insurance. The current study aimed to compare past-year outpatient mental health treatment across insurance types (private, Medicare, Medicaid, other, or none), in the household sample of non-elderly adults in the Mental and Substance Use Disorder Prevalence Study (MDPS), (n = 4,640). MDPS, fielded October 2020 through October 2022, identified 12-month prevalence of mental disorders and rates of treatment among US adults from interviews by trained clinicians using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5. Logistic regressions estimated odds of treatment among participants with a past-year MDPS diagnosis across insurance types, after adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, income level, diagnosis, and functional impairment. Analyses were weighted to reflect the US adult population. 60.2% of the 1,833 participants with an MDPS mental disorder received outpatient treatment in the past year. Compared to participants with private insurance, those with no insurance had lower odds of outpatient treatment (AOR = 0.37 [0.16-0.87]). Participants with Medicare had higher odds of treatment (AOR = 4.25 [1.56-11.64]), suggesting that individuals with complex and disabling illness were least likely to have treatment disruptions during the early phases of the pandemic. Differences between groups decreased as the pandemic progressed, but utilization of services only significantly increased among individuals with private insurance. Persisting mental health treatment gaps in the US vary by type of health insurance, which warrants extensive policy reforms.
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.