Impact of insurance type on outpatient mental health treatment of US adults.

PLOS mental health Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-05-09 DOI:10.1371/journal.pmen.0000299
Lydia A Chwastiak, Scott Graupensperger, Heather Ringeisen, Mark Edlund, Heidi Guyer, Natalie Bareis, Maria Monroe-Devita, Lisa Dixon, Scott Stroup, Jeffrey Swanson, Marvin Swartz, Elizabeth Sinclair Hancq, Robert Gibbons, Ronald C Kessler, Mark Olfson
{"title":"Impact of insurance type on outpatient mental health treatment of US adults.","authors":"Lydia A Chwastiak, Scott Graupensperger, Heather Ringeisen, Mark Edlund, Heidi Guyer, Natalie Bareis, Maria Monroe-Devita, Lisa Dixon, Scott Stroup, Jeffrey Swanson, Marvin Swartz, Elizabeth Sinclair Hancq, Robert Gibbons, Ronald C Kessler, Mark Olfson","doi":"10.1371/journal.pmen.0000299","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":520078,"journal":{"name":"PLOS mental health","volume":"2 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12392154/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLOS mental health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmen.0000299","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

保险类型对美国成人门诊心理健康治疗的影响
在美国,心理健康治疗的差距仍然是一个重大的公共卫生挑战。即使是有医疗保险的个人也面临很大的保健障碍,包括费用高、覆盖面不足和提供者目录不准确。解决治疗差距的政策需要更新基于人群的信息,了解治疗费率是否因保险类型而异。目前的研究旨在比较过去一年在精神和物质使用障碍流行研究(MDPS)中非老年人家庭样本中不同保险类型(私人,医疗保险,医疗补助,其他或无)的门诊精神健康治疗(n = 4,640)。MDPS于2020年10月至2022年10月进行,通过训练有素的临床医生使用DSM-5的结构化临床访谈,确定了美国成年人中12个月的精神障碍患病率和治疗率。在调整了年龄、性别、种族/民族、收入水平、诊断和功能障碍等因素后,Logistic回归估计了过去一年MDPS诊断的参与者在不同保险类型中的治疗几率。分析经过加权以反映美国成年人口。在1,833名患有MDPS精神障碍的参与者中,60.2%在过去一年中接受了门诊治疗。与有私人保险的参保者相比,无保险参保者门诊就诊的几率更低(AOR = 0.37[0.16-0.87])。拥有医疗保险的参与者获得治疗的几率更高(AOR = 4.25[1.56-11.64]),这表明在大流行的早期阶段,患有复杂和致残疾病的个体最不可能出现治疗中断。随着大流行的发展,群体之间的差异减小,但只有拥有私人保险的个人对服务的利用显著增加。在美国,持续存在的心理健康治疗差距因医疗保险类型而异,这需要进行广泛的政策改革。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信