A Consumer-Centric Approach To Network Adequacy: Access To Four Specialties In California’s Marketplace

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.

Determinants of referral network size for screening colonoscopies in the Veterans Health Administration after the implementation of the MISSION Act

OBJECTIVE

To measure key characteristics of the Veterans Health Administration's (VHA) Community Care (CC) referral network for screening colonoscopy and identify market and institutional factors associated with network size.

DATA SOURCES

VHA electronic health records, CC claim data, and National Plan and Provider Enumeration System.

STUDY DESIGN

In this retrospective cross-sectional study, we measure the size of the VHA's CC referral networks over time and by VHA parent facility (n = 137). We used a multivariable linear regression to identify factors associated with network size at the market-year level. Network size was measured as the number of physicians who performed at least one VHA-purchased screening colonoscopy per 1000 enrollees at baseline.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were extracted for all Veterans (n = 102,119) who underwent a screening colonoscopy purchased by the VHA from a non-VHA physician from 2018 to 2021.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

From 2018 to 2021, median network volume of screening colonoscopies per 1000 enrollees grew from 1.6 (IQR: 0.6, 4.6) to 3.6 (IQR: 1.6, 6.6). The median network size grew from 0.63 (IQR: 0.30, 1.26) to 0.92 (IQR: 0.57, 1.63). Finally, the median procedures per physician increased from 2.5 (IQR: 1.6, 4.2) to 3.2 (IQR: 2.4, 4.7). After adjusting for baseline market characteristics, volume of screening colonoscopies was positively related to network size (β = 0.15, 95% CI: [0.10, 0.20]), negatively related to procedures per physician (β = -0.12, 95% CI: [-0.18, -0.05]), and positively associated with the percent of rural enrollees (β = 0.01, 95% CI: [0.00, 0.01]).

CONCLUSIONS

VHA facilities with a higher volume of VHA-purchased screening colonoscopies and more rural enrollees had more non-VHA physicians providing care. Geographic variation in referral networks may also explain differences in the effects of the MISSION Act on access to care and patient outcomes.

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.

Merging Rural And Urban ACA Rating Areas Improved Choice, Premiums In Rural Texas

Rural consumers often face a limited choice of carriers and plans and high premiums. To mitigate this issue, Texas recently adjusted its Affordable Care Act Marketplace rating areas to integrate rural areas into nearby urban markets for rating purposes. We found that rural consumers subsequently saw increases in carrier and plan choices, as well as decreases in overall plan premiums.

Physician patient sharing relationships within insurance plan networks

OBJECTIVE

To quantify shared patient relationships between primary care physicians (PCPs) and cardiologists and oncologists and the degree to which those relationships were captured within insurance networks.

DATA SOURCES

Secondary analysis of Vericred data on physician networks, CareSet data on physicians' shared Medicare patients, and insurance plan attributes from Health Insurance Compare. Data validation exercises used data from Physician Compare and IQVIA.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study of the PCP-to-specialist in-network shared patient percentage (primary outcome). We also categorized networks by insurance market segment (Medicare Advantage [MA], Medicaid managed care, small-group or individually purchased), insurance plan type, and network breadth.

DATA EXTRACTION

We analyzed data on 219,982 PCPs, 29,400 cardiologists, and 22,745 oncologists who, in 2021, accepted MA (n = 941 networks), Medicaid managed care (n = 293), and individually-purchased (n = 332) and small-group (n = 501) plans.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Networks captured, on average, 64.6% of PCP-cardiology shared patient ties, and 61.8% of PCP-oncologist ties. Less than half of in-network ties (44.5% and 38.9%, respectively) were among physicians with a common organizational affiliation. After adjustment for network breadth, we found no evidence of differences in the shared patient percentage across insurance market segments or networks of different types (p-value >0.05 for all comparisons). An exception was among national versus local and regional networks, where we found that national plans captured fewer shared patient ties, particularly among the narrowest networks (58.4% for national networksvs. 64.7% for local and regional networks for PCP-cardiology).

CONCLUSIONS

Given recent trends toward narrower networks, our findings underscore the importance of incorporating additional and nuanced measures of network composition to aid plan selection (for patients) and to guide regulatory oversight.

Ten health policy challenges for the next 10 years

Health policies and associated research initiatives are constantly evolving and changing. In recent years, there has been a dizzying increase in research on emerging topics such as the implications of changing public and private health payment models, the global impact of pandemics, novel initiatives to tackle the persistence of health inequities, broad efforts to reduce the impact of climate change, the emergence of novel technologies such as whole-genome sequencing and artificial intelligence, and the increase in consumer-directed care. This evolution demands future-thinking research to meet the needs of policymakers in translating science into policy. In this paper, the Health Affairs Scholar editorial team describes "ten health policy challenges for the next 10 years." Each of the ten assertions describes the challenges and steps that can be taken to address those challenges. We focus on issues that are traditionally studied by health services researchers such as cost, access, and quality, but then examine emerging and intersectional topics: equity, income, and justice; technology, pharmaceuticals, markets, and innovation; population health; and global health.

Surprise Out-of-Network Bills for Hand and Upper Extremity Trauma Patients

PURPOSE

Patients may receive surprise out-of-network bills even when they present to in-network facilities. Surprise bills are common following emergency care. We sought to characterize and determine risk factors for surprise billing in hand and upper extremity trauma patients in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

We used IBM MarketScan data to evaluate hand and upper extremity trauma patients who received care in the ED from 2010 to 2017. Our primary outcome was the surprise billing incidence, defined as encounters in in-network EDs with out-of-network claims. We used descriptive and bivariate analyses to characterize surprise billing and used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate independent factors associated with surprise billing.

RESULTS

Of 710,974 ED encounters, 97,667 (14%) involved surprise billing. The incidence decreased from 26% in 2010 to 11% in 2017. Mean coinsurance payments were higher for surprise billing encounters and had double the growth from 2010 to 2017 compared to those without surprise billing. Receiving care from different provider types-especially therapists, radiologists, and pathologists, as well as hand surgeons-was associated with significantly higher odds of surprise billing. Transfer to another facility was not significantly associated with surprise billing.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the incidence of surprise billing decreased, more than 10% of patients treated in an ED for hand trauma remain at risk. Coinsurance for surprise billing encounters increased by twice as much as encounters without surprise billing. Patients requiring services from therapists, radiologists, pathologists, and hand surgeons were at greater risk for surprise bills. The federal No Surprises Act, passed in 2020, targets surprise billing and may help address some of these issues.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Many hand and upper extremity patients requiring ED care receive surprise bills from various sources that result in higher out-of-pocket costs.

The Impact of Narrow and Tiered Networks on Costs, Access, Quality, and Patient Steering: A Systematic Review

Health insurers use narrow and tiered networks to lower costs by contracting with, or favoring, selected providers. Little is known about the contemporary effects of narrow or tiered networks on key metrics. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize the evidence on how narrow and tiered networks impact cost, access, quality, and patient steering. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for articles published from January 2000 to June 2020. Both narrow and tiered networks are associated with reduced overall health care costs for most cost-related measures. Evidence pertaining to access to care and quality measures were more limited to a narrow set of outcomes or were weak in internal validity, but generally concluded no systematic adverse effects on narrow or tiered networks. Narrow and tiered networks appear to reduce costs without affecting some quality measures. More research on quality outcomes is warranted.

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

CONTEXT

The accuracy of provider directories and whether consumers can schedule timely appointments are crucial determinants of health access and outcomes.

METHODS

We evaluated accuracy and timely access data obtained from the California Department of Managed Health Care, consisting of responses to large, random, representative surveys of primary care providers, cardiologists, endocrinologists, and gastroenterologists for 2018 and 2019 for all managed care plans in California.

FINDINGS

Surveys were able to verify provider directory entries for the four specialties for 59% to 76% of listings or 78% to 88% of providers reached. We found that consumers were able to schedule urgent care appointments for 28% to 54% of listings or 44% to 72% of accurately listed providers. For general care appointments, the percentages ranged from 35% to 64% of listed providers or 51% to 87% of accurately listed providers. Differences across markets related to accuracy were generally small. Medi-Cal plans outperformed other markets with regard to timely access. Primary care consistently outperformed all other specialties. Timely access rates were higher for general appointments than for urgent care appointments.

CONCLUSIONS

Our finding raise questions about the regulatory regime as well as consumer access and health outcomes.

Incorrect Provider Directories Associated With Out-Of-Network Mental Health Care And Outpatient Surprise Bills

Mental health services are up to six times more likely than general medical services to be delivered by an out-of-network provider, in part because many psychiatrists do not accept commercial insurance. Provider directories help patients identify in-network providers, although directory information is often not accurate. We conducted a national survey of privately insured patients who received specialty mental health treatment. We found that 44 percent had used a mental health provider directory and that 53 percent of these patients had encountered directory inaccuracies. Those who encountered inaccuracies were more likely (40 percent versus 20 percent) to be treated by an out-of-network provider and four times more likely (16 percent versus 4 percent) to receive a surprise outpatient out-of-network bill (that is, they did not initially know that a provider was out of network). A federal standard for directory accuracy, stronger enforcement of existing laws with insurers liable for directory errors, and additional monitoring by regulators may be needed.

Breadth and Exclusivity of Hospital and Physician Networks in US Insurance Markets

Importance

Little is known about the breadth of health care networks or the degree to which different insurers' networks overlap.

Objective

To quantify network breadth and exclusivity (ie, overlap) among primary care physician (PCP), cardiology, and general acute care hospital networks for employer-based (large group and small group), individually purchased (marketplace), Medicare Advantage (MA), and Medicaid managed care (MMC) plans.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study included 1192 networks from Vericred. The analytic unit was the network-zip code-clinician type-market, which captured attributes of networks from the perspective of a hypothetical patient seeking access to in-network clinicians or hospitals within a 60-minute drive.

Exposures

Enrollment in a private insurance plan.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Percentage of in-network physicians and/or hospitals within a 60-minute drive from a hypothetical patient in a given zip code (breadth). Number of physicians and/or hospitals within each network that overlapped with other insurers' networks, expressed as a percentage of the total possible number of shared connections (exclusivity). Descriptive statistics (mean, quantiles) were produced overall and by network breadth category, as follows: extra-small (<10%), small (10%-25%), medium (25%-40%), large (40%-60%), and extra-large (>60%). Networks were analyzed by insurance type, state, and insurance, physician, and/or hospital market concentration level, as measured by the Hirschman-Herfindahl index.

Results

Across all US zip code-network observations, 415 549 of 511 143 large-group PCP networks (81%) were large or extra-large compared with 138 485 of 202 702 MA (68%), 191 918 of 318 082 small-group (60%), 60 425 of 149 841 marketplace (40%), and 21 781 of 66 370 MMC (40%) networks. Large-group employer networks had broader coverage than all other network plans (mean [SD] PCP breadth: large-group employer-based plans, 57.3% [20.1]; small-group employer-based plans, 45.7% [21.4]; marketplace, 36,4% [21.2]; MMC, 32.3% [19.3]; MA, 47.4% [18.3]). MMC networks were the least exclusive (a mean [SD] overlap of 61.3% [10.5] for PCPs, 66.5% [9.8] for cardiology, and 60.2% [12.3] for hospitals). Networks were narrowest (mean [SD] breadth 42.4% [16.9]) and most exclusive (mean [SD] overlap 47.7% [23.0]) in California and broadest (79.9% [16.6]) and least exclusive (71.1% [14.6]) in Nebraska. Rising levels of insurer and market concentration were associated with broader and less exclusive networks. Markets with concentrated primary care and insurance markets had the broadest (median [interquartile range {IQR}], 75.0% [60.0%-83.1%]) and least exclusive (median [IQR], 63.7% [52.4%-73.7%]) primary care networks among large-group commercial plans, while markets with least concentration had the narrowest (median [IQR], 54.6% [46.8%-67.6%]) and most exclusive (median [IQR], 49.4% [41.9%-56.9%]) networks.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, narrower health care networks had a relatively large degree of overlap with other networks in the same geographic area, while broader networks were associated with physician, hospital, and insurance market concentration. These results suggest that many patients could switch to a lower-cost, narrow network plan without losing in-network access to their PCP, although future research is needed to assess the implications for care quality and clinical integration across in-network health care professionals and facilities in narrow network plans.

Going the Extra Mile? How Provider Network Design Increases Consumer Travel Distance, Particularly for Rural Consumers

CONTEXT

The practical accessibility to medical care facilitated by health insurance plans depends not just on the number of providers within their networks but also on distances consumers must travel to reach the providers. Long travel distances inconvenience almost all consumers and may substantially reduce choice and access to providers for some.

METHODS

The authors assess mean and median travel distances to cardiac surgeons and pediatricians for participants in (1) plans offered through Covered California, (2) comparable commercial plans, and (3) unrestricted open-network plans. The authors repeat the analysis for higher-quality providers.

FINDINGS

The authors find that in all areas, but especially in rural areas, Covered California plan subscribers must travel longer than subscribers in the comparable commercial plan; subscribers to either plan must travel substantially longer than consumers in open networks. Analysis of access to higher-quality providers show somewhat larger travel distances. Differences between ACA and commercial plans are generally substantively small.

CONCLUSIONS

While network design adds travel distance for all consumers, this may be particularly challenging for transportation-disadvantaged populations. As distance is relevant to both health outcomes and the cost of obtaining care, this analysis provides the basis for more appropriate measures of network adequacy than those currently in use.

Inadequate in the Best of Times: Reevaluating Provider Networks in Light of the Coronavirus Pandemic

The coronavirus has affected billions of people worldwide. As of early June, estimates of infections exceeded six million individuals, about double the number from early May. The United States has experienced more cases than Spain, Italy, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Turkey, Canada, Japan, and Russia combined. To make things worse, the structure of the U.S. health‐care system may significantly impede access to needed medical services while exposing patients to financial liabilities. One particularly concerning feature may be the limitations on access imposed by provider networks. This article briefly reviews what we know about the narrowing of provider networks, and how findings from a series of recent articles illustrating the often‐severe restrictions imposed by these networks may be particularly detrimental in the middle of a global health emergency. I also highlight how the actions taken by policymakers to temporarily mitigate these problems have fallen short and what potential long‐term solutions might look like.

Out-of-Network Bills for Privately Insured Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery With In-Network Primary Surgeons and Facilities

IMPORTANCE

Privately insured patients who receive care from in-network physicians may receive unexpected out-of-network bills ("surprise bills") from out-of-network clinicians they did not choose. In elective surgery, this can occur if patients choose in-network surgeons and hospitals but receive out-of-network bills from other involved clinicians.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate out-of-network billing across common elective operations performed with in-network primary surgeons and facilities.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective analysis of claims data from a large US commercial insurer, representing 347 356 patients who had undergone 1 of 7 common elective operations (arthroscopic meniscal repair [116 749]; laparoscopic cholecystectomy [82 372]; hysterectomy [67 452]; total knee replacement [42 313]; breast lumpectomy [18 018]; colectomy [14 074]; coronary artery bypass graft surgery [6378]) by an in-network primary surgeon at an in-network facility between January 1, 2012, and September 30, 2017. Follow-up ended November 8, 2017.

EXPOSURE

Patient, clinician, and insurance factors potentially related to out-of-network bills.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the proportion of episodes with out-of-network bills. The secondary outcome was the estimated potential balance bill associated with out-of-network bills from each surgical procedure, calculated as total out-of-network charges less the typical in-network price for the same service.

RESULTS

Among 347 356 patients (mean age, 48 [SD, 11] years; 66% women) who underwent surgery with in-network primary surgeons and facilities, 20.5% of episodes (95% CI, 19.4%-21.7%) had an out-of-network bill. In these episodes, the mean potential balance bill per episode was $2011 (95% CI, $1866-$2157) when present. Out-of-network bills were associated with surgical assistants in 37% of these episodes; when present, the mean potential balance bill was $3633 (95% CI, $3384-$3883). Out-of-network bills were associated with anesthesiologists in 37% of episodes; when present, the mean potential balance bill was $1219 (95% CI, $1049-$1388). Membership in health insurance exchange plans, compared with nonexchange plans, was associated with a significantly higher risk of out-of-network bills (27% vs 20%, respectively; risk difference, 6% [95% CI, 3.9%-8.9%]; P < .001). Surgical complications were associated with a significantly higher risk of out-of-network bills, compared with episodes with no complications (28% vs 20%, respectively; risk difference, 7% [95% CI, 5.8%-8.8%]; P < .001). Among 83 021 procedures performed at ambulatory surgery centers with in-network primary surgeons, 6.7% (95% CI, 5.8%-7.7%) included an out-of-network facility bill and 17.2% (95% CI, 15.7%-18.8%) included an out-of-network professional bill.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this retrospective analysis of commercially insured patients who had undergone elective surgery at in-network facilities with in-network primary surgeons, a substantial proportion of operations were associated with out-of-network bills.