Hospital Quality and Selective Contracting: Evidence from Kidney Transplantation

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.

Patient selection in the presence of regulatory oversight based on healthcare report cards of providers: the case of organ transplantation

Many healthcare report cards provide information to consumers but do not represent a constraint on the behavior of healthcare providers. This is not the case with the report cards utilized in kidney transplantation. These report cards became more salient and binding, with additional oversight, in 2007 under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Conditions of Participation. This research investigates whether the additional oversight based on report card outcomes influences patient selection via waiting-list registrations at transplant centers that meet regulatory standards. Using data from a national registry of kidney transplant candidates from 2003 through 2010, we apply a before-and-after estimation strategy that isolates the impact of a binding report card. A sorting equilibrium model is employed to account for center-level heterogeneity and the presence of congestion/agglomeration effects and the results are compared to a conditional logit specification. Our results indicate that patient waiting-list registrations change in response to the quality information similarly on average if there is additional regulation or not. We also find evidence of congestion effects when spatial choice sets are smaller: new patient registrations are less likely to occur at a center with a long waiting list when fewer options are available.

Do Narrow Networks Affect the Delivery of Outpatient Care in Neurosurgery?: A Statewide Analysis of Marketplace Plans in New Jersey

BACKGROUND

The aftermath of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) witnessed the rise of narrow networks, which feature fewer providers in exchange for lower premiums. Debate still continues on whether narrow networks provide adequate access to health care, especially in specialty care services such as neurosurgery. The objective of this article was to analyze the 2019 Marketplace plans' impact on delivering outpatient neurosurgical care in New Jersey.

METHODS

The 2019 Marketplace Public Use Files were queried for "silver" plans, identifying a total of 11 plans across 3 insurance companies. Online search engines were used to identify the number of in-network neurosurgeons within 20-25 miles of ZIP codes at the center of each county. The primary outcome was the number of neurosurgeon-deficient plans, defined as those having no in-network neurosurgeons within the assigned mile radius.

RESULTS

Of all individuals who purchased an insurance plan, 73% (185,797/255,246) opted for a silver plan. Out of 111 active neurosurgeons in New Jersey, 25% (28/111) did not participate in any of the silver plans. Analysis showed 8 plans as neurosurgeon-deficient in Sussex and Warren. Meanwhile, most of the silver plans provided access to >5 neurosurgeons within 20-25 miles of most (17/21) county centers.

CONCLUSIONS

In more densely populated states such as New Jersey, the impact of narrow networks on neurosurgical coverage is less apparent. However, frustrations regarding access to care still exist because nearly 25% of neurosurgeons do not participate in the standard ACA insurance product. Furthermore, guidelines that define network adequacy in neurosurgery remain elusive, which calls for more robust parameters to monitor and ensure adequate access to health care.

Most Marketplace Plans Included At Least 25 Percent Of Local-Area Physicians, But Enrollment Disparities Remained

The Affordable Care Act allows commercial insurers participating in the Marketplaces to vary the size of their provider networks as long as the providers are "sufficient" in numbers and types. Concerns have been growing over the increasing use of restricted-provider or narrow networks in Marketplace plans because of their implications for reduced access to care, but little is known about the breadth and stability of these networks over time or what types of enrollees choose such plans. Using national data, we found that in 2016, 60 percent of provider networks in plans offered in the federally facilitated Marketplaces included at least one-quarter of local-area physicians, and that consumers' access to broad-network plans remained stable between 2015 and 2016. Hispanic and low-income people made up a disproportionate share of enrollees in smaller-network plans (those with fewer than one-quarter of local-area physicians). It will be important to monitor the impact of narrow networks on access to and quality of care as well as on health outcomes.

Association between liver transplant center performance evaluations and transplant volume

There has been increased oversight of transplant centers and stagnation in liver transplantation nationally in recent years. We hypothesized that centers that received low performance (LP) evaluations were more likely to alter protocols, resulting in reduced rates of transplants and patients placed on the waiting list. We evaluated the association of LP evaluations and transplant activity among liver transplant centers in the United States using national Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data (January 2007 to July 2012). We compared the average change in recipient and candidate volume and donor and patient characteristics based on whether the centers received LP evaluations. Of 92 eligible centers, 27 (29%) received at least one LP evaluation. Centers without an LP evaluation (n = 65) had an average increase of 9.3 transplants and 14.9 candidates while LP centers had an average decrease of 39.9 transplants (p < 0.01) and 67.3 candidates (p < 0.01). LP centers reduced the use of older donors, donations with longer cold ischemia, and donations after cardiac death (p-values < 0.01). There was no association between the change in transplant volume and measured performance (R(2)  = 0.002, p = 0.91). Findings indicate a strong association between performance evaluations and changes in candidate listings and transplants among liver transplant centers, with no measurable improvement in outcomes associated with reduction in transplant volume.

Adverse effects of prohibiting narrow provider networks

Many insurers participating in the new insurance exchanges are controlling costs by offering plans with narrow provider networks. Proposed regulations would promote network adequacy, but a pro-provider stance may not be inherently pro-consumer or even pro-patient.

Hospital Quality and Selective Contracting: Evidence from Kidney Transplantation

Most private health insurers offer a limited network of providers to enrollees. Critics have questioned whether selective contracting benefits patients. Plans counter that they take quality into account when choosing providers. Using data on five plans' networks for kidney transplant hospitals, this study shows that in-network hospitals have better outcomes than out-of-network facilities. Conditional logit estimates using patient level data confirm this result: compared to Medicare patients, privately-insured patients are more likely to register at hospitals with higher survival rates. Restricting choice has the potential to improve patient welfare if plans steer uninformed patients to high quality hospitals and physicians.