Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Sep 19.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Psychiatry. 2013 Feb 1;170(2):180–187. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12030392

Table 3.

Difference-in-difference results for annual MH/SUD spending outcomes for enrollees diagnosed with bipolar disorder, major depression and adjustment disorder post-parity implementation (2002), compared to pre-parity (2000).

2002
Probability of Any MH/SUD Use % Change 95% CI
Bipolar Disorder −1.7 (−3.7, 0.4)
Major Depression −1.9 (−3.0, 0.6)
Adjustment Disorder 0.6 (−1.5, 2.9)
MH/SUD Spending, Conditional on use $ Change 95% CI
Bipolar Disorder
 Total spending −140 (−377, 94)
 Out-of-pocket spending −86 (−121, −52)
Major Depression
 Total spending −30 (−108, 49)
 Out-of-pocket spending −78 (−92, −63)
Adjustment Disorder
 Total spending −114 (−193, −41)
 Out-of-pocket spending −78 (−95, −63)

Notes: Individuals were identified for each diagnostic group based on ICD-9 diagnosis codes in 1999 claims data. The difference-in-difference results reflect changes pre- (2000) versus post (2002) for individuals in the FEHB Program group relative to individuals in the comparison group. CI refers to confidence interval. Entries appear in bold text if p≤0.007 (Bonferroni adjusted p. values for multiple comparisons equivalent to p.<.05).