NURS 8100 Week 7 Discussion Policy Brief

Walden University NURS 8100 Week 7 Discussion Policy Brief– Step-By-Step Guide

This guide will demonstrate how to complete the Walden University NURS 8100 Week 7 Discussion Policy Brief assignment based on general principles of academic writing. Here, we will show you the A, B, Cs of completing an academic paper, irrespective of the instructions. After guiding you through what to do, the guide will leave one or two sample essays at the end to highlight the various sections discussed below.

How to Research and Prepare for NURS 8100 Week 7 Discussion Policy Brief

Whether one passes or fails an academic assignment such as the Walden University NURS 8100 Week 7 Discussion Policy Brief depends on the preparation done beforehand. The first thing to do once you receive an assignment is to quickly skim through the requirements. Once that is done, start going through the instructions one by one to clearly understand what the instructor wants. The most important thing here is to understand the required format—whether it is APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.

After understanding the requirements of the paper, the next phase is to gather relevant materials. The first place to start the research process is the weekly resources. Go through the resources provided in the instructions to determine which ones fit the assignment. After reviewing the provided resources, use the university library to search for additional resources. After gathering sufficient and necessary resources, you are now ready to start drafting your paper.

How to Write the Introduction for NURS 8100 Week 7 Discussion Policy Brief

The introduction for the Walden University NURS 8100 Week 7 Discussion Policy Brief is where you tell the instructor what your paper will encompass. In three to four statements, highlight the important points that will form the basis of your paper. Here, you can include statistics to show the importance of the topic you will be discussing. At the end of the introduction, write a clear purpose statement outlining what exactly will be contained in the paper. This statement will start with “The purpose of this paper…” and then proceed to outline the various sections of the instructions.

How to Write the Body for NURS 8100 Week 7 Discussion Policy Brief

After the introduction, move into the main part of the NURS 8100 Week 7 Discussion Policy Brief assignment, which is the body. Given that the paper you will be writing is not experimental, the way you organize the headings and subheadings of your paper is critically important. In some cases, you might have to use more subheadings to properly organize the assignment. The organization will depend on the rubric provided. Carefully examine the rubric, as it will contain all the detailed requirements of the assignment. Sometimes, the rubric will have information that the normal instructions lack.

Another important factor to consider at this point is how to do citations. In-text citations are fundamental as they support the arguments and points you make in the paper. At this point, the resources gathered at the beginning will come in handy. Integrating the ideas of the authors with your own will ensure that you produce a comprehensive paper. Also, follow the given citation format. In most cases, APA 7 is the preferred format for nursing assignments.

How to Write the Conclusion for NURS 8100 Week 7 Discussion Policy Brief

After completing the main sections, write the conclusion of your paper. The conclusion is a summary of the main points you made in your paper. However, you need to rewrite the points and not simply copy and paste them. By restating the points from each subheading, you will provide a nuanced overview of the assignment to the reader.

How to Format the References List for NURS 8100 Week 7 Discussion Policy Brief

The very last part of your paper involves listing the sources used in your paper. These sources should be listed in alphabetical order and double-spaced. Additionally, use a hanging indent for each source that appears in this list. Lastly, only the sources cited within the body of the paper should appear here.

Stuck? Let Us Help You

Completing assignments can sometimes be overwhelming, especially with the multitude of academic and personal responsibilities you may have. If you find yourself stuck or unsure at any point in the process, don’t hesitate to reach out for professional assistance. Our assignment writing services are designed to help you achieve your academic goals with ease. 

Our team of experienced writers is well-versed in academic writing and familiar with the specific requirements of the NURS 8100 Week 7 Discussion Policy Brief assignment. We can provide you with personalized support, ensuring your assignment is well-researched, properly formatted, and thoroughly edited. Get a feel of the quality we guarantee – ORDER NOW. 

Sample Answer for NURS 8100 Week 7 Discussion Policy Brief

The policy proposal the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends for furthering healthcare is “Nurses should practice to the full extent of their education and training.” Licensing and practice rules for Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRNs) scope of practice varies in each state and is determined not by their education and training but by the state laws. APRNs are essential in today’s healthcare system to solve the increasing shortages of primary care providers in rural and urban areas. Therefore, policy and regulatory changes recommend that all states allow APRNs to practice to the full extent of their education and license with full practice authority. According to the article written by Hudspeth and Klein (2019), IOM got it right in proposing that state legislators, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and Congress allow APRNs can practice to the full extent of their education and training; therefore,, decreasing the primary care provider shortage. 

 One of the IOM report messages is that “nurses should practice to the full extent of their education and training.” This message is driven by the need for nurses to transform practice to ensure that all Americans receive healthcare services ( Kershaw, 2019). In addition, nurses should maximize their contribution to the healthcare team. Also, insurance companies and federals should ensure they follow regulations and policies that protect patients’ rights. Several barriers prevent nurses from practicing to the full extent of their education and training. Some obstacles include state laws, federal policies, out-of-date insurance models, and institutional practices and cultures. The healthcare system is evolving. Between the years 1750 and 2000, there have been drastic changes in healthcare. There has been a shift from simple home remedies to complex technological systems. There are actions that the federal state should undertake to ensure the promotion of patient safety and the implementation of nursing recommendations. It provides provision of healthcare services to vulnerable populations. It should ensure the regulation of healthcare markets and support the acquisition of knowledge by nurses(Kershaw, 2019). 

References 

Hudspeth, R. S., & Klein, T. A. (2019). Understanding nurse practitioner scope of practice: Regulatory, practice, and employment perspectives now and for the future. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 31(8), 468-473. 

Kershaw, B. (2011). The future of nursing – leading change, advancing Health. The future of  nursing – Leading change, advancing health. Nursing Standard, 26(7), 31- 31. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns2011.10.26.7.31.b1274 

Sample Answer 2 for NURS 8100 Week 7 Discussion Policy Brief

The unpredictability of scope-of-practice regulations across states may hinder advanced practice nurses from giving care they were trained to provide and contribute to innovative health care delivery solutions. Though most nurses are registered nurses, over a quarter million are advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), who hold master’s or doctoral degrees and have passed national certification examinations. APRNs include nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, nurse anesthetists, and nurse midwives. Although some states have regulations that allow nurse practitioners to see patients and prescribe medications without a physician’s supervision, most states do not. The federal government is well suited to promote reform of states’ scope-of-practice laws by sharing and providing incentives for the adoption of best practices (IOM, 2010). 

First recommendation is to remove Scope of Practice Barriers. Advanced practice registered nurses should be able to practice to the full extent of their education and training. To achieve this goal, the committee recommends actions for the following entities: State Legislatures, Congress, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Personnel Management, Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, which has long sought to eliminate anticompetitive behavior in the health care industry, including restrictions on health care providers’ business practices and policies that could operate as a barrier to entry for new competitors (IOM, 2010). 

In conclusion, the country has an opportunity to transform its health care system, and nurses are in the forefront and should play a critical role. However, the ability to improve current regulatory, business, and organizational conditions does not rest only with nurses; government, corporations, health care organizations, professional associations, and the insurance industry all have a role to play (IOM, 2010). 

Also Read

NURS 8100 WEEK 7 Assignment 2 Health Policy Proposal Analysis (Policy Brief)

NURS 8100 WEEK 7 Healthcare Reform Interview

NURS 8100 Week 8 Discussion Federalism’s Impact on Policy

NURS 8100 WEEK 9 Assignment 1 Issues in Health Care Reform (Interview)

NURS 8100 Week 10 Discussion Nursing and Health Policy in Other Nations

NURS 8100 WEEK 11 Discussion 1 Policy Analysis Summary

NURS 8100 WK 11 Discussion 2 Advocating Through Policy

References 

Committee for Assessing Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Institute of Medicine 

Report The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health; Institute of Medicine; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Altman SH, Butler AS, Shern L, editors. 

Assessing Progress on the Institute of Medicine Report The Future of Nursing. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2016 Feb 22. 2, 

Removing Barriers to Practice and Care. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK350160/ 

Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Initiative on the Future 

of Nursing, at the Institute of Medicine. The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health. 

Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2011. 1, Key Messages of the Report. 

Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK209881/ 

Sample Answer 3 for NURS 8100 Week 7 Discussion Policy Brief

I concur with you that the scope-of-practice regulations hinders the optimization of knowledge in by nurses in healthcare delivery. National certification examination is one of the regulatory criterions available for both registered nurses and advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) (Phillips, 2022). The restriction on prescription of medicine by nurses in most states hinders the bridging of primary healthcare provision. This calls for the removal of scope barriers and adopting more informed regulatory procedures that distinguished specialize nurses and registered nurses in terms of skills and abilities based on the trainings. This requires both federal and state legislations that allows for a more advanced scope for APRNs and thorough regulation for the practicing nurses (Cuccovia et al., 2021). Organizations also need to advocate for skilled nurses’ involvement in patient treatment in a larger scope as opposed to the current limiting scope in most hospital setups.

References

Cuccovia, B. A., Heelan-Fancher, L., & Aronowitz, T. (2021). A policy analysis of nurse practitioner scope of practice in Massachusetts. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 34(2), 410–417. https://doi.org/10.1097/JXX.0000000000000657

Phillips S. J. (2022). 34th Annual APRN Legislative Update: Trends in APRN practice authority during the COVID-19 global pandemic. The Nurse practitioner, 47(1), 21–47. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NPR.0000802996.14636.1c

Sample Answer 4 for NURS 8100 Week 7 Discussion Policy Brief

A policy brief is a vital tool used to present research findings and recommendations to an audience with no specialization in the policy matter. Policy briefs offer evidence-based policy recommendations to help legislators make informed decisions (Arnautu & Dagenais, 2021). A strong policy brief incorporates research findings supporting the recommended policy and draws clear connections to policy initiatives. Therefore, it should be clear and concise to ensure the target audience adequately understands the recommendations. This paper presents a policy brief on the recommendation from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) report.

Selected Recommendation

The selected IOM recommendation is: “Nurses should practice to the full extent of their education and training.”

Background

The IOM recommendation emphasizes the need to transform nursing practice. The report encourages lawmakers to be guided by the Nursing Practice Act and Administrative Rules to amend state nurses’ scope-of-practice laws. Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRNs) are highly trained and competent to provide a wide range of healthcare services. However, they are limited by barriers, such as federal policies, state laws, obsolete insurance reimbursement models, and organizational practices and culture (Sullivan, 2018). State and federal initiatives are needed to update and standardize APRNs’ scope-of-practice regulations to capitalize on their specialized education and full capacity. Furthermore, the IOM report states that APRNs need to be allowed to practice to the full scope of practice. This will ensure that all citizens can access essential healthcare services and that organizations make the best use of the APRNs’ unique contributions to the healthcare team.

Insurance providers and States should create specific policy, regulatory, and financial changes that offer patients the freedom to choose from a range of health providers, including APRNs, to best, meet their healthcare needs (Sullivan, 2018). Eradicating regulatory, policy, and financial barriers to increase patient choices and patient-centered care is critical in creating a reformed health care system.

Current Characteristics

The scope of APRN practice varies with the state. The American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP) defines three types of practice authority for APRNs: Full, Reduced, and Restricted practice. APRNs practicing in states with Full practice authority are authorized to practice to their full scope of training, including evaluating, diagnosing, ordering and interpreting diagnostic tests, and prescribing treatments (AANP, n.d.). The state board of nursing gives them exclusive authority to practice to their full scope. Currently, 24 states in the U.S and its territories have adopted Full practice licensure laws. NPs practicing in states with a reduced practice are allowed to participate in at least one element of the NP practice. However, they are regulated by a collaborative agreement with a physician (AANP, n.d.). Physician oversight is needed for the NP to prescribe treatment. Sixteen states currently have the reduced practice.

There are 11 states with a restricted practice whereby the state board of nursing mandates APRN supervision or delegation of duties such as diagnosing and prescribing by a physician. Texas lies at the lower end of the spectrum with regards to the freedom it offers APRNs. One of the barriers to expanding APRNs’ scope of practice has been opposed by some physicians and physician organizations. Some physicians argue that APRNs are less competent to provide the services outlined in their scope of practice since they do not undergo rigorous training like physicians (Sofer, 2018).   

The Impact of the Recommendation

Patients perceive that the recommendation on the full scope for APRNs will increase their access to essential health services, especially in rural areas where there are few physicians and APRNs are usually the primary care providers. Currently, the country faces a shortage of primary care physicians, especially in rural and underserved areas (Ortiz et al., 2018). However, there is also an ample supply of specialists, which increase health care expenditures since specialist charge more expensively than primary care physicians. In addition, healthcare consumers perceive that the recommendation will lower the cost of healthcare. This is because full practice authority lowers duplication of services and billing costs caused by the outdated physician oversight (Ortiz et al., 2018). Besides, full practice decreases the unnecessary office visits, repetition of orders, and treatment services.

Nurses and professional nursing organizations argue that if all states allowed APRNs to practice to the full scope of their education and training, it could increase the workforce needed to meet the country’s primary care needs. APRNs would also contribute their specialized knowledge and skills to delivering person-centered, community-based health care (DePriest et al., 2020). Physicians believe that granting APRNs full practice will reduce their workload and increase access to care for patients living in underserved urban and rural areas. This is because states with full practice authority have many NPs working in the rural and underserved areas, which increases access to healthcare. Nevertheless, some physicians perceive that the recommendation will negatively impact patient care due to the lack of rigorous medical training for APRNs (Sofer, 2018). Various organizations, such as the Kaiser Family Foundation, argue that APRNs could help meet the demand for primary care. They argue that APRNs’ full practice can help meet the demand for primary health care, which is increasing due to a growing aging population (DePriest et al., 2020). Besides, increased access to health care through the Affordable Care Act increases the population in demand for care, and APRNs can help bridge the gap.

Current Solutions

The current solution to having nurses to their full extent is advocacy. Many professional organizations are lobbying to remove barriers that limit APRNs from working to the full extent of their education and training (Peterson, 2018). NP organizations in various states have engaged lobbyists to help bring the advocacy efforts to the front line of policymakers. The lobbyists are educating policymakers on what APRN full practice entails. They clarify that it is not a policy against physicians but rather one that seeks to provide patients with access to quality care (Peterson, 2018). The Campaign by the Future of Nursing is one approach taken to lobby for APRNs to practice to their full scope in states with reduced and restricted practice. Furthermore, the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN) monitors the practice roles and bills related to APRN practice to keep APRNs informed of their lobbying efforts.

Current Status in the Health Policy Arena

 A report from The Campaign shows that APRN practice authority has expanded significantly since the release of the IOM recommendation report. After the release of the IOM report, 44 state Action Coalitions worked on the recommendation to get rid of barriers in the APRN scope of practice. Besides, 13 states have passed laws granting APRNs full practice authority (Sullivan, 2018). Since the Campaign’s commencement, eight states amended their laws to grant APRNs full practice and prescriptive authority. Furthermore, some states with reduced and restrictive practices have improved their laws to be less restrictive (Sullivan, 2018). For instance, Florida (reduced practice) passed a bill that requires PMHNPs to practice for the first two years with supervision and then practice to the full scope of their licensure.

Conclusion

The IOM recommendation on allowing APRNs to practice to the full scope of their education and training will increase accessibility to healthcare and lower costs. The health care environment is continuously evolving with an increasing demand for healthcare services from the aging population. Thus APRNs’ full contribution to the health care team is essential. Tremendous progress has been made toward decreasing restrictions on the APRN scope of practice across the U.S. States. The states with restrictive and reduced APRN practice are increasing APRNs’ potential to contribute fully to health care. However, more efforts are needed to hasten the amendments of the obsolete policies. We need more states to grant full practice authority to APRNs as primary care providers.

References

AANP. (n.d.). Issues at a glance: Full practice authority. American Association of Nurse Practitioners. https://www.aanp.org/advocacy/advocacy-resource/policy-briefs/issues-full-practice-brief

Arnautu, D., & Dagenais, C. (2021). Use and effectiveness of policy briefs as a knowledge transfer tool: a scoping review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00885-9

DePriest, K., D’Aoust, R., Samuel, L., Commodore-Mensah, Y., Hanson, G., & Slade, E. P. (2020). Nurse practitioners’ workforce outcomes under the implementation of full practice authority. Nursing Outlook, 68(4), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2020.05.008

Ortiz, J., Hofler, R., Bushy, A., Lin, Y. L., Khanijahani, A., & Bitney, A. (2018). Impact of nurse practitioner practice regulations on rural population health outcomes. In Healthcare (Vol. 6, No. 2, p. 65). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare6020065

Peterson, M. E. (2018). Barriers to Practice and the Impact on Health Care: A Nurse Practitioner Focus. Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology, 8(1), 74–81.

Sofer, D. (2018). AMA Resolution Opposes Independent Practice by APRNs. AJN The American Journal of Nursing, 118(3), 12. doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000530922.33715.46

Sullivan, T. (2018). Institute of Medicine Report, The future of nursing: leading change, advancing health. Policy and Medicine.

NURS 8100 Week 8 Discussion Federalism’s Impact on Policy

There is no health care without mental health care and “access to mental health services is one of the most important and most neglected civil rights issues facing the Nation” (Haffajee et al., 2019). In the United States, about 1 in 5 people in the United States suffer from a mental health condition, and 10% of children and youth have serious mental health treatment needs. These causes significant functional impairment in their lives, with their peer and most of them being children of color (NAMI, 2015). The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for mental health and mental health parity, when Americans suddenly lost their jobs, experienced financial pressures, and became isolated, and their mental disorder symptoms were exacerbated (Haffajee et al., 2019). 

Many state health policy decisions are made in the context of the US federalist system, where both the federal and state governments share responsibility for administration, funding, and oversight. The two examples of policies that are addressed both at the federal and state level are the Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Benefits of 1996 and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) of 2008 (Haffajee et al., 2019). The State and federal laws attempted to address discriminatory practices in health insurance by creating requirements around parity, with the basic idea that mental health and addiction care should be covered at the same level as other health conditions (Andrews et al., 2019). The Mental Health Parity (MHPA) was the first federal law to create parity standards and was enacted in 1996, to eliminate discriminatory insurance practices, and establish the no disparity principle, in health insurance between mental health and general medical benefits(Mulvaney-Day et al., 2019). In 2003, under President Bush, a parity recommendation was introduced which resulted in the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA), adopted in September 2006, and in 2008, the Act was passed (Andrews et al., 2018). The act applied the MHPAEA parity requirements to the existing plans, mandating them to cover preventive services, and mental health screenings, and the individual and small group plans were also required to meet the provider network adequacy standards. The plans also ended the annual and lifetime benefit caps, eliminating medical underwriting in the individual and small-group markets with, stipulations that the insurers could not deny coverage or imposed fines (Busch, 2012). 

What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of this duplication? How does this example reflect the implications of federalism? Provide support from the literature for your position. 

The duplication expanded to cover more people, and about1.2 a million individuals in small group plans were set to receive mental health and substance use disorder benefits. They eliminated historical health coverage differences, between mental health and substance use disorder benefits (Beronio et al., 2013). The policies mandated insurance to cover mental health and substance use disorders, and to provide similar benefits, just like any other medical benefits (Friedman et al., 2017). The plans were positively associated with improved access, and utilization of behavioral health outpatient services, with subsequent increases in spending, driven primarily by the overall increases in utilization (Mulvaney-Day et al., 2019) There was a notable increase of 1000 additional individual psychotherapy visits, which expanded the application of the federal parity to cost-sharing, deductibles, limits on inpatient days, and outpatient visits for services both in, and out of network conditions (Friedman et al., 2017). The disadvantage of the policies was in the implementation, because, unlike most state laws, the federal parity law specifically includes substance abuse treatment services, while state parity laws did not apply to plans, in which the employers assume the risk services like self-insured plans (Busch, 2012). There were concerns expressed that the new federal law would relatively increase the cost, while a study reported continued increased disparities, between the behavioral, and the primary health care coverage, indicating possible evidence of non-compliant insurance practices (Shana, 2020). The mental health services remained insufficient, and in high demand, the root cause being, lack of access, inability to find care, and poor insurance coverage, as the top barriers, to obtaining effective mental health services. The federal law regulated different types of self-insured health plans, while the state-controlled many health insurance plans, which were subjected to different regulations without a way to enforce parity (Shana, 2020). There was a clear lack of oversight, and efforts to ensure compliance with the health plans, with a large number of competing for-profit insurers, which created more variation in parity enforcement.  An example of an implication of federalism is the healthcare fraud where a provider bills a patient for services that were not provided or for inaccurate medical procedures compared to the actual procedures performed. The defrauding of the federal government, an insurer, or a federal or state benefit program is a serious offense at both the federal and state levels and can result in significant penalties, fines, and imprisonment terms when an individual or company defrauds the federal government, an insurer, or a federal or state benefit program (Clark & George, 2017). 

To what degree should the federal government get involved in health care policymaking? Provide concrete examples to support your position.  

The federal government should be fully involved in health care policymaking, because. the free market has often proved that it does not have the interests of the people, its responsibility to preserve and protect the interests of the citizens, by supplementing the market gaps and regulating the market where there was notable inefficiency or unfairness (Schmidt et al., 2017). This involves effective and adequate healthcare laws, regulations, and policies, which had major direct and indirect influences on healthcare delivery (Schmidt et al., 2017). The federal government has the maximal advantage because of its unique position as a health regulator, purchaser, provider, and sponsor of applied health services, to set and implement quality standards for the health care sector (Schmidt et al., 2017). It is through its regulator role that the body establishes minimal health care standards, and effective regulatory requirements to protect the beneficiaries from incompetent, impaired, and inadequately trained clinicians, and from healthcare organizations, which lack the requisite capabilities and processes, to provide the minimal level of quality care (Schmidt et al., 2017). It has a key role in modeling the health care policies to ensure that they are beneficial and fair to everyone in the society, without discrimination by regulating them, while focusing on quality health care improvement. The body also evaluates the care quality with purchasing strategies, to promote the adoption of the best policies, by providing funding and resources to institutionalize quality improvement and patient safety practices (Schmidt et al., 2017).  

References 

 Andrews, C. M., Grogan, C. M., Smith, T. B., Abraham, A. J., Harold A. Pollack, H. A., Humphreys, K., Melissa A. Westlake, M. A., & Friedmann, P. D. (2018). Medicaid Benefits for Addiction Treatment Expanded After Implementation of The Affordable Care Act Health Affairs 2018 37:8, 1216-1222 

Busch S. H. (2012). Implications of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act. The American journal of psychiatry, 169(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.11101543 

Beronio, K., Po, Rosa., Skopec, L., and Glied, S. (2013). Affordable Care Act will expand Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Benefits and Parity Protections for 62 million Americans. Retrieved from http://aspe.hhs.gov  

Clark, K., & George, A. (2017). Home Healthcare and the MEDICARE FRAUD STRIKE FORCE. Home Healthcare Now, 35(10), 549–553. https://doi.org/10.1097/NHH.0000000000000620 

Friedman, S., Xu, H., Harwood, J. M., Azocar, F., Hurley, B., Ettner, S.L. (2017). The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act evaluation study: Impact on specialty behavioral healthcare utilization and spending among enrollees with substance use disorders. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2017.06.006  

Haffajee, R. L., Mello, M. M., Zhang, F., Busch, A. B., Zaslavsky, A. M., & Wharam, J. F. (2019). Association of Federal Mental Health Parity Legislation with Health Care Use and Spending Among High Utilizers of Services. Medical care, 57(4), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000001076 

Mulvaney-Day, N., Gibbons, B. J., Alikhan, S., & Karakus, M. (2019). Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act and the Use of Outpatient Behavioral Health Services in the United States, 2005-2016. American journal of public health, 109(S3), S190–S196. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305023 

National Alliance for Mental Illness (NAMI, 2015). Reinvesting in the community: A family guide to expanding home and community-based Mental Health services and support. Retrieved from http://www.nami.org  

Shana, A, (2020). Mental Health Parity in the US: Have We Made Any Real Progress? J Psychiatric Times, Vol 37, Issue 6, Volume 37, Issue 6