We conducted semistructured interviews with 38 participants in White racist Internet chat rooms, examining the extent to which people would, in this unique environment, advocate interracial violence in response to purported economic and cultural threats. Capitalizing on the anonymity and candor of chat room interactions, this study provides an unusual perspective on extremist attitudes. We experimentally manipulated the nature and proximity of the threats. Qualitative and quantitative analyses indicate that the respondents were most threatened by interracial marriage and, to a lesser extent, Blacks moving into White neighborhoods. In contrast, job competition posed by Blacks evoked very little advocacy of violence. The study affords an assessment of the advantages and limitations of Internet-based research with clandestine populations.

Although the double-bound (DB) fonnat for the discrete choice
contingent valuation method (CVM) has the benefit of higher efficiency in
welfare benefit estimates than the single-bound (SB) discrete choice
CVM, it has been subject to criticism due to evidence that some of the
responses to the second bid may be inconsistent with the responses to the
first bid. As a means to reduce the potential for response bias on the
follow-up bid in multiple-bound discrete choice formats such as the DB
model while maintaining much of the efficiency gains of the multiplebound approach, we introduce the one-and-one-half-bound (OOHB) approach and present a real-world application. In a laboratory setting,
despite the fact that the OOHB model uses less information than the DB
approach, the efficiency gains in moving from SB to OOHB capture a
large portion of the gain associated with moving from SB to DB. Utilizing
distribution-free seminonparametric estimation techniques on a splitsurvey data set, our OOHB estimates demonstrated higher consistency
with respect to the follow-up data than the DB estimates and were more
efficient as well. Hence, OOHB may serve as a viable alternative to the
DB fonnat in situations where follow-up response bias may be a concern.

Thirty-four states have enacte mental health parity laws that require a health plan, insurer, or employer to provide coverage for mental illness equal to that for physical illness. This study analyzed definitions of mental illness used in state parity laws, identified factors influencing the development of these definitions, and examined the effects of different definitions on access to care for persons with mental illness.

METHODS: Specific language in each state's parity legislation was analyzed. Interviews were conducted with policy makers, mental health providers, advocates, and insurers to determine factors influencing a state's definition. Current definitions of mental illness used in the clinical literature and in federal policy were reviewed and compared with definitions used in state parity laws.

RESULTS: The definitions of mental illness used in state parity legislation vary significantly and fall into one of three major categories: "broad-based mental illness," "serious mental illness," or "biologically based mental illness." To define each of these categories, state legislatures do not rely on clinically accepted definitions or federal mental health policy. Rather, influenced by political and economic factors, they are developing their own definitions.

CONCLUSIONS: Definitions of mental illness in state parity laws have important implications for access, cost, and reimbursement; they determine which populations receive a higher level of mental health services. Future research must qualitatively examine how state definitions affect the use and cost of mental health services.

This study was conducted to examine the association between psychiatrists' demographic characteristics, payment source, and managed care participation and psychiatrists' practice workload, and between the supply of other mental health providers in a psychiatrist's county of practice and psychiatrists' practice workload. Data from the 1996 American Psychiatric Association National Survey of Psychiatric Practice were merged with national countywide measures of mental health workforce and environmental data from the 1996 Area Resource File. In comparison to male psychiatrists, female psychiatrists treat fewer patients per week, provide less total hours of weekly patient care, and obtain fewer new monthly referrals. An increase in psychiatrists' managed care participation was associated with only minor increases in the number of patients per week, weekly time spent in clinical care, and number of new monthly referrals. The supply of other mental health providers was not associated with variation in practice workload. Once psychiatrists participate in managed care plans, an increase in their participation rate does not significantly expand clinical practice workload. The supply of other mental health providers was not significantly associated with variation in psychiatrists' workload, which suggests that substitution effects may not be evident with this aspect of psychiatric practice.

OBJECTIVE:  The authors compared data from psychiatrists and psychologists in California to determine whether long-standing differences in clinical practice remain after the introduction of managed care and other changes in mental service delivery.

METHODS: Responses from practicing clinicians in California who participated in the 1998 National Survey of Psychiatric Practice and the 2000 California Survey of Psychological Practice were compared on items related to patient caseload, practice profile, and insurance or reimbursement arrangements.

RESULTS: Data from 97 psychiatrists and 395 psychologists were available for the study. Psychiatrists reported spending more hours on most aspects of practice and working more total hours per week than psychologists. The weekly caseloads reported by psychiatrists included a greater percentage of persons treated for psychotic conditions than did the caseloads of psychologists. Psychologists reported that their weekly caseloads included a greater percentage of persons treated for anxiety disorders, personality disorders, and other disorders. Psychiatrists reported receiving a greater average payment for services from public insurance, and psychologists reported treating a greater average percentage of patients who did not have insurance coverage. Significant differences in income sources and fee arrangements were observed, and the net reported income of psychiatrists was nearly 80 percent greater than that of psychologists.

CONCLUSIONS: Long-standing differences in clinical practice patterns remain between psychiatrists and psychologists despite managed care staffing arrangements and treatment strategies that streamline the practices of both provider groups. The significant income and wage differences between psychiatrists and psychologists may be partly due to supply dynamics of the mental health workforce that adversely affect psychologists.