| Problem: The rules governing insurance coverage for medical and surgical treatment have historically differed from those applied to mental health and substance abuse treatment. Concerns about the potentially prohibitive costs associated with treating mental health diagnoses on par with medical and surgical diagnoses have been influencing this debate since its inception, effectively thwarting attempts at comprehensive legislation and blocking the implementation of parity.;Results: Articles reviewed examine responses to legislation in the form of cost-control strategies employed by health plan administrators for both the medical and surgical and mental health realms of treatment. Several articles attempt to measure outcomes with respect to overall spending, utilization, and consumer out-of-pocket expenditures, while others also look at historic socioeconomic implications of mental health utilization, parity and previous policies.;Conclusions: Since implementation of nationwide parity-based health plans with the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program in 2001, consumer out-of-pocket costs for mental health treatment have declined or remained neutral, utilization of mental health treatment has increased overall, congruent with secular trends, and costs to insurers have declined relative to historic trends.;Methods: This literature review samples articles from medical and public health journals and recent retrospective studies as early versions of mental health parity legislation have been implemented in select segments of the population. |
