Mental health benefit limits and cost sharing under managed care: A national survey of employers

David S Salkever, Judy Shinogle, Howard Goldman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Mental health services experts suggest that managed care diminishes the need for arbitrary benefit limits and consumer cost-sharing. Data from 577 health plans were used to test the hypotheses that health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and carve-out plans are less likely to use benefit limits or service exclusions, have more generous limits, and have lower cost- sharing requirements than non-HMOs and non-carveout plans. The results show that HMOs were more likely to use service exclusions and did not make less use of benefit limits. Calve-outs were less likely to use some coverage exclusions. Comparisons of the stringency of limits and cost-sharing provisions did not show consistent differences.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1631-1633
Number of pages3
JournalPsychiatric Services
Volume50
Issue number12
StatePublished - 1999

Fingerprint

Cost Sharing
cost sharing
Managed Care Programs
Insurance Benefits
managed care
Health Care Costs
Cost-Benefit Analysis
employer
Mental Health
exclusion
Health Maintenance Organizations
mental health
health
Mental Health Services
health service
coverage
Maintenance
Organizations
expert
Health

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health(social science)
  • Health Professions(all)

Cite this

Mental health benefit limits and cost sharing under managed care : A national survey of employers. / Salkever, David S; Shinogle, Judy; Goldman, Howard.

In: Psychiatric Services, Vol. 50, No. 12, 1999, p. 1631-1633.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{15cedb918f5240b189e660163b433a85,
title = "Mental health benefit limits and cost sharing under managed care: A national survey of employers",
abstract = "Mental health services experts suggest that managed care diminishes the need for arbitrary benefit limits and consumer cost-sharing. Data from 577 health plans were used to test the hypotheses that health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and carve-out plans are less likely to use benefit limits or service exclusions, have more generous limits, and have lower cost- sharing requirements than non-HMOs and non-carveout plans. The results show that HMOs were more likely to use service exclusions and did not make less use of benefit limits. Calve-outs were less likely to use some coverage exclusions. Comparisons of the stringency of limits and cost-sharing provisions did not show consistent differences.",
author = "Salkever, {David S} and Judy Shinogle and Howard Goldman",
year = "1999",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "50",
pages = "1631--1633",
journal = "Psychiatric Services",
issn = "1075-2730",
publisher = "American Psychiatric Association",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mental health benefit limits and cost sharing under managed care

T2 - A national survey of employers

AU - Salkever, David S

AU - Shinogle, Judy

AU - Goldman, Howard

PY - 1999

Y1 - 1999

N2 - Mental health services experts suggest that managed care diminishes the need for arbitrary benefit limits and consumer cost-sharing. Data from 577 health plans were used to test the hypotheses that health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and carve-out plans are less likely to use benefit limits or service exclusions, have more generous limits, and have lower cost- sharing requirements than non-HMOs and non-carveout plans. The results show that HMOs were more likely to use service exclusions and did not make less use of benefit limits. Calve-outs were less likely to use some coverage exclusions. Comparisons of the stringency of limits and cost-sharing provisions did not show consistent differences.

AB - Mental health services experts suggest that managed care diminishes the need for arbitrary benefit limits and consumer cost-sharing. Data from 577 health plans were used to test the hypotheses that health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and carve-out plans are less likely to use benefit limits or service exclusions, have more generous limits, and have lower cost- sharing requirements than non-HMOs and non-carveout plans. The results show that HMOs were more likely to use service exclusions and did not make less use of benefit limits. Calve-outs were less likely to use some coverage exclusions. Comparisons of the stringency of limits and cost-sharing provisions did not show consistent differences.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032717006&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032717006&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 10577886

AN - SCOPUS:0032717006

VL - 50

SP - 1631

EP - 1633

JO - Psychiatric Services

JF - Psychiatric Services

SN - 1075-2730

IS - 12

ER -