Factors associated with state legislators' support for opioid use disorder parity laws.
Behavioral health parity laws
Opioid use disorder
State legislators
Journal
The International journal on drug policy
ISSN: 1873-4758
Titre abrégé: Int J Drug Policy
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9014759
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2020
08 2020
Historique:
received:
09
01
2020
revised:
30
04
2020
accepted:
15
05
2020
pubmed:
17
6
2020
medline:
29
7
2021
entrez:
17
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In the United States, state behavioral health parity laws play a crucial role in ensuring equitable insurance coverage and access to substance use disorder treatment and services for people that need them. State legislators have the exclusive authority to adopt these laws. The purpose of this study was to identify legislator beliefs independently associated with "strong support" for opioid use disorder (OUD) parity. Data were from a 2017 cross-sectional, state-stratified, multi-modal survey of state legislators (N = 475). The dependent variable was "strong support" for OUD parity. Primary independent variables were beliefs about state parity laws. Bivariate analyses and mixed effects logistic regression were conducted. Legislators who "strongly supported" OUD parity were significantly more likely than legislators who did not "strongly support" OUD parity to be female (64.1% vs. 46.5%, p<.001) , Democrat (76.2% vs. 29.3%, p<.001), and have liberal, compared to conservative, ideology (85.6% vs. 27.1%, p<.001). After adjusting for legislator demographics and state-level covariates, beliefs such as agreeing that state parity laws do not increase health insurance premium costs (aOR=6.77, p<.01) and that substance use disorder treatments can be effective (aOR=5.00, p<.001) remained associated with "strong support" for OUD parity. These state legislators' beliefs were more strongly associated with "strong support" for OUD parity than political party, ideology, and other demographic and state-level characteristics. Dissemination materials and communication strategies to cultivate support for OUD parity laws among state legislators should focus on the fiscal impacts of parity laws and the effectiveness of substance use disorder treatments.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In the United States, state behavioral health parity laws play a crucial role in ensuring equitable insurance coverage and access to substance use disorder treatment and services for people that need them. State legislators have the exclusive authority to adopt these laws. The purpose of this study was to identify legislator beliefs independently associated with "strong support" for opioid use disorder (OUD) parity.
METHODS
Data were from a 2017 cross-sectional, state-stratified, multi-modal survey of state legislators (N = 475). The dependent variable was "strong support" for OUD parity. Primary independent variables were beliefs about state parity laws. Bivariate analyses and mixed effects logistic regression were conducted.
RESULTS
Legislators who "strongly supported" OUD parity were significantly more likely than legislators who did not "strongly support" OUD parity to be female (64.1% vs. 46.5%, p<.001) , Democrat (76.2% vs. 29.3%, p<.001), and have liberal, compared to conservative, ideology (85.6% vs. 27.1%, p<.001). After adjusting for legislator demographics and state-level covariates, beliefs such as agreeing that state parity laws do not increase health insurance premium costs (aOR=6.77, p<.01) and that substance use disorder treatments can be effective (aOR=5.00, p<.001) remained associated with "strong support" for OUD parity. These state legislators' beliefs were more strongly associated with "strong support" for OUD parity than political party, ideology, and other demographic and state-level characteristics.
CONCLUSIONS
Dissemination materials and communication strategies to cultivate support for OUD parity laws among state legislators should focus on the fiscal impacts of parity laws and the effectiveness of substance use disorder treatments.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32540516
pii: S0955-3959(20)30133-X
doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.102792
pmc: PMC7483853
mid: NIHMS1603817
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
102792Subventions
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : P50 MH113662
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : R21 MH111806
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interests None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to disclose. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
J Athl Train. 2019 Nov;54(11):1140-1148
pubmed: 31553653
Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Dec 1;35(12):2289-2296
pubmed: 27920318
Am J Psychiatry. 2013 May;170(5):494-501
pubmed: 23511486
Health Econ Policy Law. 2021 Apr;16(2):170-182
pubmed: 31902388
Health Commun. 2016;31(2):242-55
pubmed: 26086340
Int J Drug Policy. 2016 Aug;34:80-7
pubmed: 27450320
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011 Jan;38(1):4-23
pubmed: 21197565
Psychiatr Serv. 2018 Feb 1;69(2):136-146
pubmed: 28967320
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2020 Apr 1;45(2):277-309
pubmed: 31808787
Fed Regist. 2016 Mar 30;81(61):18389-445
pubmed: 27029080
Psychiatr Serv. 2020 Nov 1;71(11):1170-1178
pubmed: 32517640
Milbank Q. 2019 Dec;97(4):1200-1232
pubmed: 31710152
PLoS One. 2015 Feb 23;10(2):e0117565
pubmed: 25706743
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Feb 16;103(4):306-16
pubmed: 21212381
Annu Rev Public Health. 2019 Apr 1;40:167-185
pubmed: 30633711
Health Educ Res. 2012 Apr;27(2):292-306
pubmed: 21893684
Am J Public Health. 2017 Oct;107(10):1601-1603
pubmed: 28817318
Health Aff (Millwood). 2019 Apr;38(4):643-651
pubmed: 30933576
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018 Jan 04;67(5152):1419-1427
pubmed: 30605448
Am J Public Health. 2009 Dec;99(12):2160-7
pubmed: 19833981
Psychiatr Serv. 2019 Oct 1;70(10):894-900
pubmed: 31272336
Med Care. 2019 Jul;57(7):494-497
pubmed: 30844906
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2016 Oct;41(5):873-916
pubmed: 27256811
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016 Dec 30;65(50-51):1445-1452
pubmed: 28033313
J Phys Act Health. 2010 Mar;7 Suppl 1:S99-107
pubmed: 20440020
Milbank Q. 2010 Sep;88(3):404-33
pubmed: 20860577
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Feb;126:73-85
pubmed: 25528557
J Health Econ. 2018 Jul;60:177-197
pubmed: 29990675
Psychiatr Serv. 2003 Apr;54(4):501-7
pubmed: 12663837
Health Aff (Millwood). 2018 Jul;37(7):1153-1159
pubmed: 29985686
Implement Sci. 2013 Dec 13;8:141
pubmed: 24330729
Implement Sci. 2017 Jun 26;12(1):81
pubmed: 28651613
Qual Life Res. 2003 May;12(3):229-38
pubmed: 12769135
Int J Drug Policy. 2019 Dec;74:90-97
pubmed: 31586775
Implement Sci. 2018 Sep 19;13(1):121
pubmed: 30231934
Soc Ment Health. 2012 Nov 1;2(3):
pubmed: 24353902
J Addict Med. 2015 Sep-Oct;9(5):358-67
pubmed: 26406300
J Behav Health Serv Res. 2014 Oct;41(4):410-28
pubmed: 24833486
Int J Drug Policy. 2018 Apr;54:9-17
pubmed: 29324253
Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2018;44(4):426-430
pubmed: 29261341
Am J Public Health. 2018 May;108(5):642-648
pubmed: 29565661
Psychiatr Serv. 2018 Oct 1;69(10):1105-1108
pubmed: 29983112
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011 Mar;38(2):65-76
pubmed: 20957426
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2018 Apr 1;43(2):185-228
pubmed: 29630706
Am J Public Health. 2019 Mar;109(3):434-436
pubmed: 30676789
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2017 Mar;44(2):160-163
pubmed: 27418342
J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2015 Mar;18(1):39-48
pubmed: 25862203
J Gen Intern Med. 2018 Jul;33(7):999-1001
pubmed: 29761264
JAMA Psychiatry. 2013 Dec;70(12):1355-62
pubmed: 24154931
Am J Prev Med. 2006 Oct;31(4 Suppl):S35-44
pubmed: 16979468
Health Commun. 2016 Jul;31(7):903-10
pubmed: 26698295