Potemkin Protections: Assessing Provider Directory Accuracy and Timely Access for Four Specialties in California

Characterizing physician directory data quality: variation by specialty, state, and insurer

BACKGROUND

As U.S. legislators are urged to combat ghost networks in behavioral health and address the provider data quality issue, it becomes important to better characterize the variation in data quality of provider directories to understand root causes and devise solutions. Therefore, this manuscript examines consistency of address, phone number, and specialty information for physician entries from 5 national health plan provider directories by insurer, physician specialty, and state.

METHODS

We included all physicians in the Medicare Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System (PECOS) found in ≥ 2 health insurer physician directories across 5 large national U.S. health insurers. We examined variation in consistency of address, phone number, and specialty information among physicians by insurer, physician specialty, and state.

RESULTS

Of 634,914 unique physicians in the PECOS database, 449,282 were found in ≥ 2 directories and included in our sample. Across insurers, consistency of address information varied from 16.5 to 27.9%, consistency of phone number information varied from 16.0 to 27.4%, and consistency of specialty information varied from 64.2 to 68.0%. General practice, family medicine, plastic surgery, and dermatology physicians had the highest consistency of addresses (37-42%) and phone numbers (37-43%), whereas anesthesiology, nuclear medicine, radiology, and emergency medicine had the lowest consistency of addresses (11-21%) and phone numbers (9-14%) across health insurer directories. There was marked variation in consistency of address, phone number, and specialty information by state.

CONCLUSIONS

In evaluating a large national sample of U.S. physicians, we found minimal variation in provider directory consistency by insurer, suggesting that this is a systemic problem that insurers have not solved, and considerable variation by physician specialty with higher quality data among more patient-facing specialties, suggesting that physicians may respond to incentives to improve data quality. These data highlight the importance of novel policy solutions that leverage technology targeting data quality to centralize provider directories so as not to not reinforce existing data quality issues or policy solutions to create national and state-level standards that target both insurers and physician groups to maximize quality of provider information.

Testing and Validation of a Custom Retrained Large Language Model for the Supportive Care of HN Patients with External Knowledge Base

PURPOSE

This study aimed to develop a retrained large language model (LLM) tailored to the needs of HN cancer patients treated with radiotherapy, with emphasis on symptom management and survivorship care.

METHODS

A comprehensive external database was curated for training ChatGPT-4, integrating expert-identified consensus guidelines on supportive care for HN patients and correspondences from physicians and nurses within our institution's electronic medical records for 90 HN patients. The performance of our model was evaluated using 20 patient post-treatment inquiries that were then assessed by three Board certified radiation oncologists (RadOncs). The rating of the model was assessed on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) based on accuracy, clarity of response, completeness s, and relevance.

RESULTS

The average scores for the 20 tested questions were 4.25 for accuracy, 4.35 for clarity, 4.22 for completeness, and 4.32 for relevance, on a 5-point scale. Overall, 91.67% (220 out of 240) of assessments received scores of 3 or higher, and 83.33% (200 out of 240) received scores of 4 or higher.

CONCLUSION

The custom-trained model demonstrates high accuracy in providing support to HN patients offering evidence-based information and guidance on their symptom management and survivorship care.

Inaccuracies in provider directories persist for long periods of time

A growing literature has identified substantial inaccuracies in consumer-facing provider directories, but it is unclear how long these inaccuracies persist. We re-surveyed inaccurately listed Pennsylvania providers (n = 5170) between 117 to 280 days after a previous secret-shopper survey. Overall, 19.0% (n = 983) of provider directory listings that had been identified as inaccurate were subsequently removed, 44.8% (n = 2316) of provider listings continued to show at least 1 inaccuracy, and 11.6% (n = 600) were accurate at follow-up. We were unable to reach 24.6% (n = 1271) of providers. Longer passage of time was associated with reductions in directory inaccuracies, particularly related to contact information, and to a lesser degree, with removal of inaccurate listings. We found substantial differences in corrective action by carrier. Together, these findings suggest persistent barriers to maintaining and updating provider directories, with implications for how well these tools can help consumers select health plans and access care.

State Efforts to Regulate Provider Networks and Directories: Lessons for the Future

Managed care arrangements are the dominant form of insurance coverage in the United States today. These arrangements rely on a network of contracted providers to deliver services to their enrollees. After the managed care backlash, governments moved to ensure consumer access by issuing a number of requirements for carriers related to the composition and size of their networks and how this information is shared with consumers. The authors provide a comprehensive review of these state-based efforts to regulate provider network adequacy and provider directory accuracy for commercial insurance markets. In addition to common measures of adequacy, they also include requirements specifically targeted to underserved populations. Their assessment comes on the heels of recent empirical work that has raised significant questions about whether these efforts are effective, particularly considering the limited nature of enforcement. They also provide a brief overview and assessment of recent federal government efforts that replicate these state regulations with a focus on lessons learned from state regulations that may help improve their federal counterparts. Furthermore, they outline a future research agenda focused on a more comprehensive evaluation of efforts to ensure consumer access.

Psychiatrist Networks In Medicare Advantage Plans Are Substantially Narrower Than In Medicaid And ACA Markets

Medicare Advantage now covers twenty-eight million older adults, many of whom have mental health needs. Enrollees are often restricted to providers who participate in a health plan's network, which may present a barrier to care. We used a novel data set linking network service areas, plans, and providers to compare psychiatrist network breadth-the percentage of providers in a given area that are considered "in network" for a plan-across Medicare Advantage, Medicaid managed care, and Affordable Care Act plan markets. We found that nearly two-thirds of psychiatrist networks in Medicare Advantage were narrow (that is, they contained fewer than 25 percent of providers in a network's service area) compared with approximately 40 percent in Medicaid managed care and Affordable Care Act plan markets. We did not observe similar differences in network breadth for primary care physicians or other physician specialists across markets. Amid efforts to strengthen network adequacy, our findings suggest that psychiatrist networks in Medicare Advantage are particularly narrow, which may disadvantage enrollees as they attempt to obtain mental health services.

Consistency of Physician Data Across Health Insurer Directories

This study assesses the consistency of information across publicly available physician directories from 5 large national health insurers.

How Phantom Networks And Other Barriers Impede Progress On Mental Health Insurance Reform

Phantom networks are but one of many barriers to realizing access to mental health services. The term phantom networks refers to the misleading practice of listing providers as members of a network when they are not actually accepting patients. Inaccurate information on provider availability impedes the implementation of reforms that are designed to improve health insurance coverage of mental health treatment. Some other barriers to improving access to mental health services include low reimbursement rates from Medicaid, hesitancy of psychiatrists and psychologists to participate in networks, and practices of some managed care networks that require prior approval of mental health services such as psychiatric hospitalization. Phantom networks and these other barriers stand in the way of patients finding providers to help them at a time of need for treatment and support.

Phantom Networks: Discrepancies Between Reported And Realized Mental Health Care Access In Oregon Medicaid

Understanding the extent to which beneficiaries can "realize" access to reported provider networks is imperative in mental health care, where there are significant unmet needs. We compared listings of providers in network directories against provider networks empirically constructed from administrative claims among members who were ages sixty-four and younger and enrolled in Oregon's Medicaid managed care organizations between January 1 and December 31, 2018. "In-network" providers were those with any medical claims filed for at least five unique Medicaid beneficiaries enrolled in a given health plan. They included primary care providers, specialty mental health prescribers, and nonprescribing mental health clinicians. Overall, 58.2 percent of network directory listings were "phantom" providers who did not see Medicaid patients, including 67.4 percent of mental health prescribers, 59.0 percent of mental health nonprescribers, and 54.0 percent of primary care providers. Significant discrepancies between the providers listed in directories and those whom enrollees can access suggest that provider network monitoring and enforcement may fall short if based on directory information.