Abstract

Little is known about the breadth of health care networks or the degree to which different insurers' networks overlap. 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. 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. Enrollment in a private insurance plan. 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. 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. 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.

Highlights

  • A distinctive trend in US health insurance is narrow networks that limit in-network services to a restricted set of clinicians and facilities.[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] With frequent churn occurring when patients change insurance plans,[9,10,11,12] insurance network design may have implications for the extent to which churn disrupts the continuity of care

  • 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 primary care physician (PCP), 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

Read more

Summary

Introduction

A distinctive trend in US health insurance is narrow networks that limit in-network services to a restricted set of clinicians and facilities.[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] With frequent churn occurring when patients change insurance plans,[9,10,11,12] insurance network design may have implications for the extent to which churn disrupts the continuity of care. While the breadth of networks has been documented in the individually purchased insurance market,[4,5,17] a more holistic picture of networks is needed to understand implications for care continuity because switching between insurance plans occurs within an insurance type but between them. We examined network variation within and between insurance types, including employer-sponsored insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call