We compare those in parity and nonparity states and those needing mental health care with other special needs children.
Specifically, the likelihood of a child's annual OOP health care spending exceeding $1,000 was significantly lower among families of children needing mental health care living in parity states compared with those in nonparity states.
An early analysis by Sturm using Community Tracking Study (CTS) detected no statistically significant differences in perceptions of perceived insurance generosity or access among those living in parity and nonparity states (2000).
Table 2 compares unadjusted mean outcomes among families of CSHCN in parity and nonparity states with and without mental health care needs.
We detect no significant difference among residents of parity and nonparity states in receipt of needed mental health care.
(For an example of using the DDD approach to estimate the effects of a particular public policy, see Gruber 1994.) Specifically, we examine changes in the dependent variables by the group with mental disorders (relative to those without) in states with parity legislation (relative to the nonparity states) in the years after (relative to before) the laws took effect.
For each outcome of interest, we first calculate DDD statistics for parity versus nonparity, and then calculate DDD statistics for strong parity/medium parity versus no parity, respectively.
Of the three second-order interactions, Par*yr01 controls for the specific time trend for the parity states (relative to the nonparity states), yr01 * MhDx controls for the specific time trend for the intervention group (relative to the nonintervention group), and Par*MhDx controls for differential outcome of the intervention group relative to the nonintervention group in the parity states relative to the nonparity states.
In other words, [[lambda].sub.1] is the DDD estimate for the policy effect of parity, because it stands for the differential relative trend between the intervention group and the nonintervention group in parity states versus the nonparity states, which we attribute to the policy of state mental parity legislation.
Comparison between the parity states and the nonparity states indicate no clear pattern for the two perceived outcomes.