---
type: source
title: "RTI International: Mental Health Provider Reimbursement Is 27.1% Lower Than Medical/Surgical — Persistent Structural Access Barrier"
author: "RTI International / The Kennedy Forum"
url: https://www.thekennedyforum.org/blog/there-arent-enough-mental-health-providers-pay-is-a-big-reason-why/
date: 2024-11
domain: health
secondary_domains: []
format: analysis
status: unprocessed
priority: high
tags: [mental-health, reimbursement-rates, parity, workforce, access, rti, kennedy-forum, structural-mechanism]
intake_tier: research-task
---

## Content

RTI International's 2024 report "Behavioral Health Parity – Pervasive Disparities in Access to In-Network Care Continue" finds that the average reimbursement rate for office visits is 27.1% HIGHER for medical/surgical physicians than for mental health/substance use health care providers.

Key findings:
- The 27.1% differential is the average across office visit types — the gap for specialty mental health care may be larger
- Payers are legally required (under MHPAEA) to apply the SAME processes, strategies, and evidentiary standards for setting behavioral health rates as they use for medical/surgical rates
- The 4th Annual MHPAEA Report (March 2026) documented that payers actively raise medical/surgical provider reimbursement to attract networks when gaps are found — but do NOT apply the same methodology to mental health/SUD networks, even where gaps are identified
- The Kennedy Forum's Mental Health Parity Index (Illinois, May 2025) confirmed: mental health services reimbursed 27% lower than physical health on average — consistent with RTI finding
- Because of the reimbursement differential, mental health providers disproportionately opt out of insurance networks — creating the narrow network access problem that MHPAEA enforcement is trying to address from the demand side

The mechanism chain:
1. Insurers set MH reimbursement 27% below medical rates
2. Mental health providers can't sustain practices accepting insurance at these rates
3. Providers opt out of networks → narrow networks → patients can't find in-network care
4. MHPAEA enforcement targets "narrow networks" as an NQTL violation
5. BUT the root cause (reimbursement differential) is rarely the enforcement target
6. Even where enforcement finds NQTL violations, remediation typically addresses the network "gap" not the underlying reimbursement rate

The distinction between coverage parity (a benefit exists) and access parity (a provider accepts your insurance) is the structural gap that RTI documents.

## Agent Notes

**Why this matters:** This is the structural mechanism underneath the enforcement story. You can fine every insurer in Georgia, mandate comparative analyses for every employer plan, and enforce MHPAEA perfectly — and still not close the access gap if the reimbursement rate differential persists. This is the data that makes Belief 3 precise in the mental health context: the structural misalignment is the 27.1% rate differential, not procedural compliance.

**What surprised me:** The 4th MHPAEA Report (March 2026) documents that payers actively KNOW the methodology for raising reimbursement (they apply it to medical networks) and choose NOT to apply it to mental health networks. This is not accidental — it's documented differential treatment. The RTI data gives this the quantitative spine (27.1%).

**What I expected but didn't find:** Evidence of what the reimbursement rate SHOULD be for parity. MHPAEA doesn't require a specific rate level — just comparable PROCESSES for setting rates. So the 27.1% gap is legal as long as the insurer can claim they used the same methodology. This creates an enormous compliance gap.

**KB connections:**
- Core mechanism for why the mental health supply gap is widening (KB claim)
- Explains why MHPAEA enforcement alone cannot close the access gap — enforcement addresses processes, not outcomes
- The 27.1% is the quantitative spine for the structural misalignment in mental health specifically
- Connects to Session 31 MHPAEA 4th Report finding (documented deliberate differential treatment)

**Extraction hints:**
- CLAIM: "Mental health providers are reimbursed 27.1% less than medical/surgical providers for comparable services — a persistent structural mechanism that MHPAEA enforcement cannot fully address because the law requires comparable processes, not comparable rates"
- This is a specific, falsifiable claim with quantitative precision
- The scope qualifier: "comparable services" means comparable education/training level, same visit type — this is not raw average

**Context:** RTI International is the primary health policy research organization that HHS/CMS uses for MHPAEA compliance data. The 27.1% figure is from a peer-reviewed report, not advocacy. The Kennedy Forum is the primary advocacy organization for MHPAEA enforcement, founded by Patrick Kennedy.

## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
PRIMARY CONNECTION: Mental health supply gap claim + MHPAEA structural mechanism
WHY ARCHIVED: This is the quantitative spine for WHY enforcement doesn't close the access gap. The 27.1% reimbursement gap is the mechanism — enforcement addresses procedural compliance (whether the same process was used) rather than outcome parity (whether rates are actually comparable). This distinction is the extractable insight.
EXTRACTION HINT: Focus on the mechanism chain: rate differential → provider network opt-out → narrow network → access gap. The claim should make clear that procedural enforcement addresses step 3 (narrow network) while the root cause is step 1 (rate differential). Don't just report the 27.1% — explain why it persists despite enforcement.
