Journal
MILBANK QUARTERLY
Volume 88, Issue 3, Pages 404-433Publisher
WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00605.x
Keywords
Parity; insurance; mental health; addiction
Funding
- National Institute of Mental Health [R01 MH080797]
- John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
- National Institute on Drug Abuse [R01 DA026414]
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Methods: Twenty-nine structured interviews were conducted with key informants in the federal parity debate, including members of Congress and their staff; lobbyists for consumer, provider, employer, and insurance groups; and other key contacts. Historical documentation, academic research on the effects of parity regulations, and public comment letters submitted to the U.S. Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Treasury before the release of federal guidance also were examined. Findings: Three factors were instrumental to the passage of this law: the emergence of new evidence regarding the costs of parity, personal experience with mental illness and addiction, and the political strategies adopted by congressional champions in the Senate and House of Representatives. Conclusions: Challenges to implementing the federal parity policy warrant further consideration. This law raises new questions about the future direction of federal policymaking on behavioral health.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available