Social support is used to determine transplant eligibility despite lack of an evidence base and vague regulatory guidance. It is unknown how many patients are disqualified from transplantation due to inadequate support, and whether providers feel confident using these subjective criteria to determine eligibility. Transplant providers (n = 551) from 202 centers estimated that, on average, 9.6% (standard deviation = 9.4) of patients evaluated in the prior year were excluded due to inadequate support. This varied significantly by United Network for Organ Sharing region (7.6%‐12.2%), and by center (21.7% among top quartile). Significantly more providers used social support in listing decisions than believed it ought to be used (86.3% vs 67.6%). Nearly 25% believed that using social support in listing determinations was unfair or were unsure; 67.3% felt it disproportionately impacted patients of low socioeconomic status. Overall, 42.4% were only somewhat or not at all confident using social support to determine transplant suitability. Compared to surgical/medical transplant providers, psychosocial providers had 2.13 greater odds of supporting the criteria (P = .03). Furthermore, 69.2% supported revised guidelines for use of social support in listing decisions. Social support criteria should be reconsidered in light of the limited evidence, potential for disparities, practice variation, low provider confidence, and desire for revised guidelines.

Over the past twenty-five years, thirty-seven states and the US Congress have passed mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) parity laws to secure nondiscriminatory insurance coverage for MH/SUD services in the private health insurance market and through certain public insurance programs. However, in the intervening years, litigation has been brought by numerous parties alleging violations of insurance parity. We examine the critical issues underlying these legal challenges as a framework for understanding the areas in which parity enforcement is lacking, as well as ongoing areas of ambiguity in the interpretation of these laws. We identified all private litigation involving federal and state parity laws and extracted themes from a final sample of thirty-seven lawsuits. The primary substantive topics at issue include the scope of services guaranteed by parity laws, coverage of certain habilitative therapies such as applied behavioral analysis for autism spectrum disorders, credentialing standards for MH/SUD providers, determinations regarding the medical necessity of MH/SUD services, and the application of nonquantitative treatment limitations under the 2008 federal parity law. Ongoing efforts to achieve nondiscriminatory insurance coverage for MH/SUDs should attend to the major issues subject to private legal action as important areas for facilitating and monitoring insurer compliance.

All insurance products sold on the health insurance exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act are required to offer mental health and substance use disorder benefits in compliance with requirements of the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA). This column identifies two dimensions of parity compliance that consumers observe while shopping for insurance products offered on two state-run exchanges. The authors discuss a number of apparent discrepancies with the requirements of MHPAEA in these observable dimensions, emphasizing the potential impact of these factors on consumers' decisions about plan enrollment. The analysis reveals a nuanced picture of how insurance issuers are presenting behavioral health benefits to potential enrollees and illustrates broader concerns about parity compliance and the potential for selection on the exchanges. Four specific discrepancies are highlighted as areas for further evaluation.