Breadth and Exclusivity of Hospital and Physician Networks in US Insurance Markets.
Community Networks
/ statistics & numerical data
Cross-Sectional Studies
Delivery of Health Care, Integrated
/ organization & administration
Health Care Sector
/ organization & administration
Health Facilities, Proprietary
/ standards
Health Information Systems
Humans
Insurance, Health
/ organization & administration
Primary Health Care
/ organization & administration
Quality Assurance, Health Care
United States
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 12 2020
01 12 2020
Historique:
entrez:
17
12
2020
pubmed:
18
12
2020
medline:
29
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33331918
pii: 2774285
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.29419
pmc: PMC7747020
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2029419Subventions
Organisme : AHRQ HHS
ID : K12 HS026395
Pays : United States
Organisme : AHRQ HHS
ID : R01 HS025976
Pays : United States
Références
Health Aff (Millwood). 2017 Feb 1;36(2):297-305
pubmed: 28167719
Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Oct 1;35(10):1842-1848
pubmed: 27702958
JAMA. 2015 Aug 18;314(7):669-70
pubmed: 26110978
LDI Issue Brief. ;21(8):1-6
pubmed: 28958127
Health Serv Res. 2016 Oct;51(5):1981-2001
pubmed: 26841265
JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Mar;175(3):337-8
pubmed: 25559469
J Gen Intern Med. 2017 Oct;32(10):1146-1155
pubmed: 28523475
Health Serv Res. 2018 Apr;53(2):1272-1285
pubmed: 28345256
Milbank Q. 2016 Dec;94(4):736-767
pubmed: 27995715
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Apr 1;3(4):e202727
pubmed: 32282047
JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Jul;175(7):1157-62
pubmed: 25985320
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Nov 1;2(11):e1915111
pubmed: 31722027
N Engl J Med. 2014 Aug 14;371(7):591-3
pubmed: 25119604
Am Econ Rev. 2015 May;105(5):110-4
pubmed: 29542905
Health Aff (Millwood). 2018 Aug;37(8):1252-1256
pubmed: 30080470
Int J Surg. 2014 Dec;12(12):1495-9
pubmed: 25046131
Health Aff (Millwood). 2019 Nov;38(11):1918-1926
pubmed: 31682498