0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Research Letter |

Adequacy of Outpatient Specialty Care Access in Marketplace Plans Under the Affordable Care Act FREE

Stephen C. Dorner, MSc1; Douglas B. Jacobs, ScB1; Benjamin D. Sommers, MD, PhD1
[+] Author Affiliations
1Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
JAMA. 2015;314(16):1749-1750. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.9375.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Nearly 12 million individuals have enrolled in coverage through the Affordable Care Act’s insurance marketplaces.1 The US Department of Health and Human Services regulates plans, applying a “reasonable access” standard to ensure access to “a sufficient number and type of providers.”2 Nonetheless, concerns remain about network adequacy.3 We assessed access to outpatient specialists in federal marketplace plans.

We examined physician networks in 34 states offering plans through the federal marketplace during 2015 open enrollment using the rating area (geographic unit for marketplace premiums) containing each state’s most populous county. We analyzed 4 silver plans (the category of plans purchased by 69% of consumers)1: lowest, second lowest, median, and highest premium plans. One plan was excluded for a defective search engine, yielding 135 plans.

Using plans’ online directories between April 12 and 18, 2015, we searched for in-network specialist physicians in obstetrics/gynecology, dermatology, cardiology, psychiatry, oncology, and neurology (largest volume nonsurgical specialties) and endocrinology, rheumatology, and pulmonology (specialties treating common outpatient conditions).4 Accounting for patient travel, we applied a broad and narrow search radius relative to each rating area’s most populous city. Based on directories’ functionality, the broad radius was 160 km (100 miles) or, when unavailable (in 12%), the maximum search radius (typically 80 km [50 miles]). Our narrow search was half the broad radius.

The primary outcome was whether plans included physicians in each specialty. We labeled plans without specialist physicians as specialist-deficient plans. We reassessed specialist-deficient plans 1 month later (May 14, 2015) and corroborated our findings by calling insurers directly. We analyzed the prevalence of specialist-deficient plans across premium levels using the χ2 test. We evaluated out-of-network costs for these plans and compared monthly premiums for 40-year-old individuals in specialist-deficient plans with other plans using the t test. Confidence intervals (95%) were estimated in Stata (StataCorp) using the proportion command. A 2-sided P value of <.05 was considered statistically significant.

Using the broad and narrow searches, 18 (13.3%; 95% CI, 8.5%-20.3%) and 19 (14.1%; 95% CI, 9.1%-21.1%), respectively, of 135 plans were specialist-deficient plans. Two plans included dermatologists and oncologists in the broad search radius but not the narrow radius. Three plans included endocrinologists in the broad search radius but not the narrow radius.

Endocrinology, rheumatology, and psychiatry were most commonly excluded, and an additional 7-14 plans had fewer than 5 in-network physicians in those specialties (Table). There was no significant difference in the proportion of specialist-deficient plans across insurance plan premium levels (P = .40).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable.  In-Network Physicians by Specialty Within 160 km (100 Miles)a

Nine of 34 states (23.5%; 95% CI, 11.8%-41.5%) had at least 1 specialist-deficient plan. Twelve different insurers had at least 1 specialist-deficient plan. Between assessments, 6 of 19 (31.6%; 95% CI, 13.7%-57.3%) specialist-deficient plans added specialists. Calls to the remaining plans confirmed the lack of in-network physicians.

Beneficiaries of specialist-deficient plans had high out-of-network costs; 5 of 19 (26.3%; 95% CI, 10.4%-52.4%) plans did not cover out-of-network services, whereas 11 of the remaining 14 plans (78.6%; 95% CI, 46.0%-94.0%) required cost-sharing of 50% or more. Nine of 19 (47.4%; 95% CI, 25.0%-70.8%) did not cover medications prescribed by out-of-network physicians. There was no significant difference in premiums between specialist-deficient plans ($314; 95% CI, $254-$375) and other plans ($276; 95% CI, $264-$289; P = .21).

In this study of federal marketplace plans, nearly 15% completely lacked in-network physicians for at least 1 specialty. We found this practice among multiple states and issuers. This likely violates network adequacy requirements, raising concerns regarding patient access to specialty care. Such plans precipitate high out-of-pocket costs and may lead to adverse selection (ie, sicker individuals choosing plans with broader networks), which is similar to concerns over restrictive drug formularies.5

We also found substantial turnover in directory listings. This may contribute to inaccuracies in listings, which prompted more stringent federal requirements for 2016.2 However, physician listings without any specialists (even if inaccurate) may confuse or impede consumers’ access to physicians. Future research exploring this practice among different marketplace categories, as well as waiting times for in-network specialists, could provide additional insights.

This study has several limitations. We disproportionately analyzed lower cost plans due to their association with federal subsidies. Our study relied on physician directories, which may overestimate network breadth.6 We also focused on the largest population center in each state because rural regions are known to have fewer physicians and may have an even higher prevalence of specialist-deficient plans.

Section Editor: Jody W. Zylke, MD, Deputy Editor.

Corresponding Author: Stephen C. Dorner, MSc, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115 (stephen.dorner@post.harvard.edu).

Author Contributions: Messrs Dorner and Jacobs had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: All authors.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Dorner, Jacobs.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: All authors.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Dorner, Sommers.

Study supervision: Dorner, Sommers.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Dr Sommers reported currently serving part-time as a senior advisor to the US Department of Health and Human Services. No other disclosures were reported.

Disclaimer: This work does not represent the views of the US Department of Health and Human Services.

US Department of Health and Human Services. Health insurance marketplaces 2015 open enrollment period: March enrollment report. http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2015/MarketPlaceEnrollment/Mar2015/ib_2015mar_enrollment.pdf. Accessed May 3, 2015.
US Department of Health and Human Services. Final 2016 letter to issuers in the federally-facilitated marketplaces. http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Regulations-and-Guidance/Downloads/2016_Letter_to_Issuers_2_20_2015.pdf. Accessed March 7, 2015.
Haeder  SF, Weimer  DL, Mukamel  DB.  California hospital networks are narrower in Marketplace than in commercial plans, but access and quality are similar. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34(5):741-748.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; National Center for Health Statistics. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2010 summary tables. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ahcd/namcs_summary/2010_namcs_web_tables.pdf. Accessed April 3, 2015.
Jacobs  DB, Sommers  BD.  Using drugs to discriminate—adverse selection in the insurance marketplace. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(5):399-402.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Resneck  JS  Jr, Quiggle  A, Liu  M, Brewster  DW.  The accuracy of dermatology network physician directories posted by Medicare Advantage health plans in an era of narrow networks. JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150(12):1290-1297.
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable.  In-Network Physicians by Specialty Within 160 km (100 Miles)a

References

US Department of Health and Human Services. Health insurance marketplaces 2015 open enrollment period: March enrollment report. http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2015/MarketPlaceEnrollment/Mar2015/ib_2015mar_enrollment.pdf. Accessed May 3, 2015.
US Department of Health and Human Services. Final 2016 letter to issuers in the federally-facilitated marketplaces. http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Regulations-and-Guidance/Downloads/2016_Letter_to_Issuers_2_20_2015.pdf. Accessed March 7, 2015.
Haeder  SF, Weimer  DL, Mukamel  DB.  California hospital networks are narrower in Marketplace than in commercial plans, but access and quality are similar. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34(5):741-748.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; National Center for Health Statistics. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2010 summary tables. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ahcd/namcs_summary/2010_namcs_web_tables.pdf. Accessed April 3, 2015.
Jacobs  DB, Sommers  BD.  Using drugs to discriminate—adverse selection in the insurance marketplace. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(5):399-402.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Resneck  JS  Jr, Quiggle  A, Liu  M, Brewster  DW.  The accuracy of dermatology network physician directories posted by Medicare Advantage health plans in an era of narrow networks. JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150(12):1290-1297.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

2,735 Views
1 Citations
×

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Emergency Care. Issue Brief Health Policy Track Serv 2015;():1-39.
Jobs
JAMAevidence.com

Care at the Close of Life: Evidence and Experience
Homeless Patients in the Health Care System

Care at the Close of Life: Evidence and Experience
Providing Palliative Care Amid Social Disorganization