Literature DB >> 35738225

Variation in network adequacy standards in Medicaid managed care.

Jane M Zhu1, Daniel Polsky, Cameron Johnstone, K John McConnell.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To describe the types and breadth of network adequacy standards used by state Medicaid programs with managed care arrangements. STUDY
DESIGN: Document analysis of Medicaid provider network reports, managed care plan contracts, access monitoring review plans, Medicaid services manuals, quality strategy reviews, and state statutes and regulations.
METHODS: We analyzed 52 primary documents from 2017 to 2020, representing 39 of the 40 states (including the District of Columbia) with Medicaid managed care. We conducted descriptive analyses of network adequacy standards, variation in standards by type of provider, timely access standards, nonquantitative network access standards, and monitoring or enforcement plans.
RESULTS: A majority (89.7%) of states applied time and distance standards for network adequacy, stratified by population size or geography. Time and distance standards ranged from 15 to 90 minutes for a primary care provider (mean, 44.7 minutes in rural areas and 28.9 minutes in urban areas) to 30 to 135 minutes for a cardiologist (mean, 72.1 minutes in rural areas and 40.4 minutes in urban areas). Most states also used timely access or appointment availability standards. Relatively few states applied other quantitative standards, such as provider to enrollee ratios, or provided detailed enforcement plans in cases of poor compliance.
CONCLUSIONS: Most states use travel time and distance to account for local contexts and geographies, but there is considerable variation across Medicaid programs. Several states do not publicize their network adequacy regulations, or they rely on qualitative standards despite federal requirements. For network adequacy to be meaningful, states must balance the tension between flexibility and accountability and ensure that regulations are monitored and enforced accordingly.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35738225      PMCID: PMC9236159          DOI: 10.37765/ajmc.2022.89156

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Manag Care        ISSN: 1088-0224            Impact factor:   3.247


  8 in total

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

Authors:  Susan H Busch; Kelly A Kyanko
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 6.301

2.  Marketplace Plans With Narrow Physician Networks Feature Lower Monthly Premiums Than Plans With Larger Networks.

Authors:  Daniel Polsky; Zuleyha Cidav; Ashley Swanson
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2016-10-01       Impact factor: 6.301

3.  Association of State Access Standards With Accessibility to Specialists for Medicaid Managed Care Enrollees.

Authors:  Chima D Ndumele; Michael S Cohen; Paul D Cleary
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2017-10-01       Impact factor: 21.873

4.  Is Access to Outpatient Neurosurgery Affected by Narrow Insurance Networks? Results From Statewide Analysis of Marketplace Plans in Louisiana.

Authors:  Rimal H Dossani; Piyush Kalakoti; Anil Nanda; Bharat Guthikonda; Luis M Tumialán
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 4.654

5.  Effects of Narrow Networks on Access to High-Quality Cancer Care.

Authors:  Stephen M Schleicher; Samyukta Mullangi; Thomas W Feeley
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 31.777

6.  Secret Shoppers Find Access To Providers And Network Accuracy Lacking For Those In Marketplace And Commercial Plans.

Authors:  Simon F Haeder; David L Weimer; Dana B Mukamel
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 6.301

7.  Networks In ACA Marketplaces Are Narrower For Mental Health Care Than For Primary Care.

Authors:  Jane M Zhu; Yuehan Zhang; Daniel Polsky
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 6.301

8.  Relation Between Narrow Networks and Providers of Cancer Care.

Authors:  Laura Yasaitis; Justin E Bekelman; Daniel Polsky
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-07-05       Impact factor: 44.544

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.